2017 Supreme(MP) 1242
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J. P. Gupta, J.
Vishnu Kant Tripathi – Petitioner
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
Cri. Rev. No. 1740 of 2016
Decided On : 27-03-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Manish Datt, Rahul Sharma
For the Respondent: Amit Pandey
The significance of prima facie evidence at the stage of framing the charge and the importance of knowledge and intention in determining the culpability of the accused.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Charge Framed under Section 304 Part-II of IPC - Code of Criminal Procedure - [Section 397, Section 401] - The court discussed the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence at the stage of framing the charge. The court also highlighted the significance of knowledge and intention in determining the culpability of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a Lineman, died due to electrocution while working on an electric supply line. The accused, an Operator at the Sub Station, had issued a permit for the work but negligently supplied power to the line without verifying if the work was completed, leading to the death of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused's act of supplying power to the line, knowing that the deceased was working on it, constituted an offence under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence at the stage of framing the charge and concluded that the lower court did not commit any illegality in framing the charge.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused's act of supplying power to the electric line, knowing that the deceased was working on it, constituted an offence under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of prima facie evidence at the stage of framing the charge and highlighted the importance of knowledge and intention in determining the culpability of the accused.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and it was observed that the lower court did not commit any illegality in framing the charge punishable under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
ORDER :
This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17/05/2016 passed in S.T. No. 428/2015 by Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur Baghelan whereby against the applicant/accused person a charge has been framed for an offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
2. As per the prosecution story against the applicant allegation is that on 9-4-2015 near about 12.25 P.M. deceased Nandlal was working as a Lineman to cure the default in the electric supply line of village Sejhera, which falls under the Sub Station 33/11 KV of Rampur Baghelan where applicant was working as an Operator. The deceased before going on work on the electric supply line informed and taken permission from the applicant, who issued permit in writing and close the supply of electricity power to facilitate the deceased to cure the default in the supply line of the village concerned. But the applicant without verifying or withdrawing the aforesaid permission, supplied power in the electric line where the deceased was working. Consequently, the deceased electrocuted and died and aforesaid incident was reported to the Police Station Rampur Baghelan, District-Satna, where Crime No. 600/2015 under section 304 of Indian Penal Code was registered and after completing the investigating, charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Rampur Baghelan, District-Satna, who committed the case after taking cognizance to the Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur Baghelan, District- Satna by impugned order. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
3. On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that the impugned order is bad, illegal, incorrect and improper as there is no material available on record to establish that the applicant has attributed any role or rashly or negligently acted for causing of aforesaid incident, which was purely an accidental one. In the story of prosecution the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence so alleged are completely missing. The applicant had no knowledge or bad intention thereon for the alleged unfortunate incident. There is no cogent or plausible evidence with regard to establish the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that at the time of framing of the charge, it is bounded duty of the trial court to ascribe whether necessary ingredient to constitute alleged offences are satisfied or not. The trial court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out that if the facts emerging therefrom taken on their face value discloses the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is further submitted that applicant has nothing to do with that part of the work in which the incident took place as the entire electric supply and closer work is done under the supervision and control of the regular Junior Engineer of the M.P Electricity Board. There is also regular Government Operator and Assistant Operator for the aforesaid purpose and applicant is a contract employee of the electricity contractor of the village in question, in view of the aforesaid contention, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and applicant be discharged from the alleged offence.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed all contentions of the applicant and prayed to dismiss the revision.
5. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the charge-sheet and documents, in view of this Court the revision has no merit and deserve to be dismissed as it is prima facie found that deceased died on account of electrocution after supplying electricity power in the line where the deceased were working by the applicant/accused. It is also found that before going on work on electric line, requisite permit was taken by the deceased from the app