Proving direct causation is essential in establishing liability under Section 304-A IPC for criminal negligence.

JUDGMENT :

Sunder Mohan, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him for the offence under Section 304 (II) of the IPC, vide judgment dated 11.04.2023 in S.C.No.35 of 2021, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.

2(i) The gist of the prosecution case is that on 28.09.2019, the victim had gone to fetch water from a panchayat tap nearby at about 12.00 noon; that when she came near the house of the appellant and when she touched the compound wall of PW24 [Poornima], she was electrocuted; that when her husband [PW14] saw the victim, she was standing without any movement; that when the husband touched her, he suffered an electric shock; that he realised that the victim had suffered an electric shock and thereafter, managed to remove the victim's hand from the fence with a wooden log; that when the victim was admitted in the hospital, they declared the victim to be dead; that the appellant had tied a wire that supplied electricity to PW24’s house in the iron fencing above the compound wall, knowing fully well that it is likely to cause death, if anybody comes in contact with the compound wall if there is any damage to the electrical wire.

(ii) On the complaint [Ex.P1] given by PW1, the mother of the victim, a case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., stating that her daughter died due to electric shock. During the course of investigation, the respondents collected evidence to show that one year prior to the occurrence, the appellant had tied an electrical wire which supplied electricity to his neighbour [PW24], in the iron fencing above the compound wall, since the electrical wire was touching the wall of his house; that the appellant as a wireman was aware of the consequences namely that if the electrical wire is damaged, it could cause the death of any person who came in contact with the compound wall; and therefore, a final report was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 304(II) of the IPC, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Hosur.

(iii) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, was committed to the Court of Sessions i.e., Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court Krishnagiri, for trial, which was taken on file as S.C.No.35 of 2021. The trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offences under Section 304 (II) of the IPC and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(iv) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 25 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.25 and marked 15 exhibits as Exs.P1 to Ex.P15, besides 1 material object, viz., M.O.1. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.

(v) The trial Court found that the appellant had tied the electrical wire over the iron fencing on the compound wall that had caused the death of the victim and therefore found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304 (II) of the IPC. The trial Court, therefore, convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Hence, the accused has preferred the instant appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the alleged act of the appellant in tying the electrical w