Negligence leading to death under IPC Section 304A requires proof of direct causation, which was established through substantial evidence in this case.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri.Govind Gouda Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.S.S.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent.

2. Accused persons have suffered an order of conviction in CC No.271/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine in a sum of Rs.2,000/- which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.11/2010 are the revision petitioners.

3. During the pendency of the revision petition, accused No.1 died and therefore, revision petition against accused No.1 stood abated.

4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

4.1. Mundgod Police Station filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC . The charge sheet would reveal that accused No.1 was the owner of the land in Sy.No.32 of Bachanaki village and accused Nos.2 and 3 are his sons. Accused persons have grown sugarcane in their land. In order to protect the sugarcane crops from the animals which would grace them, they had fenced the land with barbed wire. However, they had also unauthorizedly connected the electric wire to the said fence.

4.2. On 19.05.2007 at about 7 p.m., accused No.2 connected the electricity line to the fence unauthorizedly. At about 7.45 p.m. on the same day, complainant as well as others went to fetch drinking water. At that juncture, they came in contact with the electric live wire attached to fencing and Sudheer Yegappanavar was electrocuted and died on the spot. Accused No.3 having seen the incident, ran away from the spot without even disconnecting the electricity. Incident was reported to the police and case came to be registered.

5. After thorough investigation, police filed the charge sheet.

6. Presence of the accused persons were secured by the learned Trial Judge after taking cognizance, plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

7. Prosecution examined nine witnesses as P.W.1 to 9 and placed on record 10 documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 10.

8. Wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.5 and Erappa, Mahaveera, Shantappa, Yellappa and other persons were also examined as witnesses. Dr.Lakshmidevi who conducted post mortem examination, issued post mortem report is examined as P.W.7.

9. Detailed cross-examination of prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive materials.

10. Thereafter, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C . was recorded wherein accused persons have denied the incriminatory materials but failed to place their version about the incident.

11. Learned Trial Judge subsequent there to heard the arguments of both the sides and convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to undergo six months imprisonment.

12. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.10/2010.

13. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 23.08.2017, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused persons.

14. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused persons are before this Court.

15. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that incident is an accident and there is no material on record to establish that it is the accused persons who are responsible for the electrocution of Sudheer Yegappanavar.

16. He would further contend that just because the land belongs to accused persons, there cannot be an inference that accused are the persons who are responsible for the electrocution of Sudheer Yegappanavar and sought for allowing the revision petition.

17. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event