Prosecution must prove negligence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Section 304A IPC; hearsay evidence insufficient for establishing liability.

1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioners and also the learned counsel for respondent/State.

2. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution before the Trial Court that the son of the complainant had been working since last 10-11 years in CHESCOM as Mazdur Gangman. That on 22.05.2010 at about 5.00 p.m., the said Prakash had gone to the house of one Ganesh of Gundlupet Town in order to give electric connection to the new house constructed by him and she came to know that said C.Prakash expired due to electrocution. That on previous day i.e., on 21.05.2010, at about 5 p.m., C.Prakash had gone along with Venkatesh (accused No.2) and they had installed the meter in the said new house constructed in Gundlupet town and said fact was intimated to her by son and brother-in-law of owner of the house by name G.Manju to come on the next day and give electricity connection. She also came to know that when deceased C.Prakash and accused No.2-Venkatesh had gone to give electric connection, one Basavaraju was on the spot and he intimated to the electric contractor Sandeep Suresh that the electric accident had occurred and immediately said Sandeep Suresh came in his jeep and shifted her son to the hospital. The Jr. Engineer, CHESCOM i.e., Siddalingappa and Venkatesh and Contractor and Suresh had intimated the deceased to give electric connection and therefore, they are the cause for death and due to their negligence, they are cause for electric accident and due to their negligence, the untoward incident had happened. The Police based on the complaint, registered the case and filed a Charge sheet. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, examined PW1 to PW9 and also got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6(a). The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion that victim died on account of electrocution.

There is negligence on the part of the accused Nos.1 to 3. Being a Engineer, Contractor and also a linemen, they have not provided proper safety to the victim. He has sustained burn injuries and succumb to the injuries. The Trial Court convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and sentenced to undergo for a period of one year and imposed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and out of that Rs.7,000/- is payable to mother of the victim and Rs.3,000/- shall vest with the State. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.30/2015. The appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence available on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court with modification directing the accused Nos.1 to 3 to pay compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- each to the PW1 totally to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, apart from the fine amount already paid to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and the same is payable within one month. If they fails to pay the compensation amount, they are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 months each and even if they undergo simple imprisonment for 5 months, it will not absolve them from paying compensation as provided under Proviso of Section 421 of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved the said judgment of conviction, the present Revision Petition is filed before this Court.

3. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that the case of the prosecution that the revision petitioners have not taken due care while deputing the deceased C.Prakash to give electric connection to the house of PW5-Ganesh and also they acted negligently. Both the Courts have failed to take note that prosecution has not proved that the revision petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have deputed the decease C.Prakash to give electric connection either by oral or documentary evidence. The revision petitioner No.2 is a linemen and it was his bounden duty to give electrical connection. But, no such instruction was given to the victim. Even appellate Cour