The distinction between culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC and causing death by rash or negligent acts under Section 304A of the IPC, and the respective roles of the investigating officer and the Magistrate in determining the appropriate charge and committing the accused to the appropriate court.

This is a revision petition against an order of acquittal.

2. The facts leading to the case briefly as follows - P.W. 2 was a line-man at Pasumalaithangal. He received intimation that there was no supply for the customer having connection No. 30 and that the meter was not running. When he went to inspect the place, he found that there was a temporary clandestine connection with the main electric wire and a galvanised iron wire put around the paddy field belonging to one Ganesan, P.W. 3. He found on the west to the pumpset and near the fence one person dead out of electric shock. He reported the fact to his superior officer, P.W. 1, who inspected the place and found that on account of the electricity stealthily taken from the main line and passed into the wife put around the fields, one person was dead. P.W. 1 in his turn filed a complaint to the Ginjee Police Station. In the course of the investigation, the investigating officer gathered that the owner of the land, Ganesan, P.W. 3, was in the previous evening the accused giving electric connection to the wife around his lands. The investigation also reveals that Ganesan P.W. 3 was informed by the accused that they were doing so for the purpose of hunting wild boars, that Ganesan told them that human beings may get caught and die and asked them to be careful and that the accused assured him that they would see that no untoward incident occurred. The Investigation Officer filed a report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. to the effect that offences under Ss. 304A, 379 read with Ss. 34(2)(b), 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act appeared to have been committed by the accused without probing into the criminal liability of Ganesan himself. The case was taken on file by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram. In the course of trial, Ganesan turned hostile. The doctor who conducted the post mortem examination, was not even examined before the trial. The court below acquitted the accused of all the charges by judgment dated 27-8-1983. Aggrieved by that judgment, the widow of the deceased victim had filed this revision petition.

3. The main ground for revision raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the offence committed was one defined under S. 299, I.P.C. and punishable under S. 304, I.P.C. that it was wrongly considered by the trial court as an offence under S. 304A, that the trial Court which is a Magistrate Court, has no jurisdiction to try the case which is punishable under S. 304, I.P.C. and that it is instead an offence which is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

4. The power of this Court dealing with a revision petition against an order of acquittal by the victim or the relatives of the victim is limited. The Supreme Court had occasion to go into the matter in three important decisions, viz, Chinnaswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1962 AIR(SC) 1788, 1963 (69) CRLJ 8, 1963 (3) SCR 412 : 1962 AIR(SC) 1788, 1963 (69) CRLJ 8, 1963 (3) SCR 412 Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sargu Singh, 1968 Mad LJ (Cri) 399 : 1968 CrLJ 865) (SC) and Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, 1974 Mad LJ (Cri) 168 : 1973 CrLJ 1404) (SC). The Supreme Court has also indicated some instances in which this court could interfere with an order of acquittal and set it aside. One of such instances is that the court which tried the offence had no jurisdiction.

5. The next question which arises is whether the acts amounts to an offence under S. 304, I.P.C. as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The case of the prosecution is that the accused have connected the iron fence around the paddy fields of Ganesan with the main electric supply in order to hunt the wild boars. Prima facie, they could be aware that specific harmful consequence would or could follow, viz, a human being may happen to come into contact with the wife and meet with death. This is what appears to have happened in this case. There is also a direct and distinct connection between the acts of the