Prosecution must provide evidence linking defendants' responsibility for negligence in maintaining safety to establish criminal liability.

O R D E R

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C No.192/2000 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor, are the revision petitioners herein. They were convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate for the commission of offence under Sections 304A and 337 I.P.C. The allegation against them is that they, while working as Overseer and Lineman in Athirampuzha KSEB office, failed to properly maintain the electrical lines coming under their area, leading to the drop down of the low tension electrical lines which passed through the residential compound of PW1, and the electrocution of the mother and brother-in-law of PW1 at about 5:00 a.m on 14.04.2000.

2. After analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the examination of PW1 to PW15, and the documents brought on record as Exts.P1 to P9, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the negligence on the part of the petitioners resulted in the incident. Accordingly, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced under Section 304A I.P.C, to simple imprisonment for six months and under Section 337 I.P.C, to simple imprisonment for three months and fine Rs.500/- each. Default terms of imprisonment were also provided for non-payment of fine. Though the petitioners challenged the aforesaid verdict of the Trial Court before the Sessions Court, Kottayam, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Kottayam, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the Courts below, the petitioners are here before this Court with these revision petitions. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that the failure of the petitioners to properly maintain the electrical lines which passed through the residential compound of PW1, resulted in the drop down of those electrical lines due to the wear and tear caused as a result of the constant friction with the coconut cadjans of two coconut trees in the compound of PW1. Unaware of the drop down of electrical lines, the mother of PW1, a lady aged 72 years, happened to touch those live lines in the early morning of 14.04.2000 and got electrocuted. Her son-in-law aged 25 years, who tried to rescue her, also underwent the same peril. Though two other relatives of the victims, who tried to save the lives of the victims, suffered electric shock, the danger could be abated by the wise act of another person, who detached the contact with the electric lines, making use of a firewood log. According to the prosecution, PW1 and his relatives had persistently complained to the KSEB officials about the danger posed due to the contact of the electrical lines with the cadjans of the coconut trees standing inside their residential premises, but no action was taken. It is upon the above premises that the petitioners herein are roped in this case alleging culpable negligence, leading to the incident which resulted in the loss of two lives.

5. The primary requirement which the prosecution was bound to establish to fasten the petitioners with the criminal liability alleged in this case was that the petitioners were in charge of and responsible for the proper maintenance of the electrical lines which passed through the residential compound of PW1. It was the incumbent responsibility of the prosecution to bring in evidence to show that the first accused, the Overseer and the second accused, the Lineman were entrusted with the responsibility to take care of the electrical lines coming under the area where the residence of PW1 was loca