Negligence under Section 336 IPC can lead to liability and the appropriateness of sentencing and compensation is assessed based on the gravity of the offense.

ORDER

The petitioners herein were convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Idukki, in C.C.No.352/2008 for the commission of offence under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860. They were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.250/- each, with a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for ten days by the Trial Court. In the appeal preferred before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, as Crl.Appeal No.21/2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of Court with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.2,500/- each to PW1, the injured. It is the aforesaid verdict of the Appellate Court, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners, who were the Officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board, in charge of Panamkutty-Chelachuvadu electric line, were negligent in the maintenance of the aforesaid electric line, which resulted in PW1 suffering electric shock at about 4.30 p.m. on 05.08.2008 from a stay wire, leading to burn injuries.

4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8, and brought on record five documents as Exts.P1 to P5. One contradiction in the previous statement of PW2 was marked as Ext.D1 from the part of the accused. After evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioners guilty of Section 336 IPC r/w Section 34 , and convicted them thereunder. The Appellate Court made a re-appraisal of the aforesaid evidence, and found that the prosecution had successfully established that the negligent conduct of the petitioners resulted in the aforesaid acts. Having regard to the reasonings adopted by the courts below in the impugned judgments, and also the facts and circumstances borne out of the records, I am of the view that the concurrent findings of the courts below in the above regard, are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.

5. As regards the sentence awarded, it is seen that the Appellate Court has reduced the prison term awarded by the Trial Court upon the petitioners by limiting the imprisonment as imprisonment till the rising of court. So also, the Appellate Court considered the need of the injured getting compensated by the petitioners, and accordingly directed the petitioners to pay compensation of Rs.2,500/- each to PW1. The sentence awarded by the Appellate Court in the above regard is perfectly reasonable and commensurate with the gravity of the offence involved in this case. Needless to say, there is absolutely no reason to unsettle the aforesaid verdict of the Appellate Court.

In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.

sd/