: 1 :
{N THE I-§§GH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT 'DHARWAD
DATES THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DEcEM1©3E_fA"'- 4' V
CRIMINAL APPg;;g_;{_No.S':?5'i2003»""'%A "
BETWEEN:
Ramachandrappa . , L . .,_
S/0. Narayanappa Mastafi:--ma--fiava:' "
Age:::'S2 years - 2 . . '
Occ: Coolie
R/0. Sc,<Jx:a;z1.2:§g.§,h'
Ta111k=*$31iI'8h&'-'ii1i . _'
lf)istrict::._{3'r'z1'ciag,' ' _ ...Ap§e3}ant
{By Sri ; Sbmaii ;Aéw§catc)
- - .,Stsitt3 '0i:.';:arnataka """ " 'V
~R_ep._V Vbjfviifix $.§atc_ Pubiic Prosecutor
' ._.I4§:a'g.'£1 €'o_u1t'0f=Ké_1;"natai{a
Hig':a_co'u:%z;»;':3u;:1c:iz1g
Banugalom. L' ' ...Re:sponc1e11t
(By s1Ti,,VI§;1~i.c;ot1<!;1ir1di, HCGP)
"';'I'?a.is appeal is filed under section 374(2) Cr. 13.3.,
Zagéiflst the judgmeni dateé 04.01.2008, passed by the
Presiding Oitficcr, §'ast Track Court, Gadag, in
" '"':'5.C.No.113/2000, convicting the appefiant/accuseci for an
offence punishable under scction 304 Par*.:----Ii IPC 8:. etc.
This appcai coming on for fina} heaxing this tiny, the
Court delivereé the foiiowing:
JUDGMENT
The appellant (hereinafter refe I:rsd_ ‘to 2:15 ”éicé§i;;.s’é{:1’¢)’wa:;v’ ” ”
tried, convicted and sentenced foijaxi T:.*:§’r§€fl’
of the Fast Track Court at
2. It is the case % the year
1999, accusegi «’jé3.;joyment of land
bearing sm*§éj;:.”N;$L2’ifi1?9;:/ Sooranagi Village and
he in order to i3’I’otcct
maize }éa.fié, had erecteé poles around
the Said V’1za1:AlAti’~ barbed Wire. The accused had
fenced around the Iané to yrnttzct
‘ maize animals.
Q11 :20§i)8.19%, at abcmt 6 13.33., deceased Umesh
who had gefie to gaze a cow, accidentally came
écutact with electrocutcd wire. fenced around the laind sf
_ __é:cc1:sed. Deceased Umcsh Katsnahalli s’:1fi’ered burn injuxics
chm to electrocuticn and died as a resuit of injuries. The
btfithftf of deceased lodged a complaint with jurisdictional
N’
police, who afier investigation submitted c11garg:;:;si:i:.:};t~:c:t.T,’:-V;a:g;’;.1′;it1T$=V_’t “T
accused for aforesaid ofiénce.
3. The leazned sessions ;J:;§1gc’§a §’ held L.
time, accused was in posses;.;’Vi§;;%1.V”a1:1d of; land
bearing survey No.2{)9;’ 0f order ta
protect maize crops, around said
land and clectrofinggfrzd standing maize
cr0P fiom Judge has held that
accusegi” Iiéd ‘ ‘.C]Z}L.¢’:?4~;1’i.”‘V(‘V:ii’3V{:V)itI'{}C11’§3.(}I1 of wire fenced
around death of human beings
and in Contact with elcctrocuteci
V. t!;ere1iy” «tbs. vatxcuscd committed an offence of
{‘;1I’,1:p”€lbI€v. IiO:Iflg’i%§i€1’6 not amounting to murder, punishable
§§nr_i;e;<%'sex{:ti§5e:_; Part 11 Im.
4'.v.i__A}1avc heard Sri B.V.SomapuI, lfiarned Counsel for
£1_;€:V aégused and Sri P.H.C§oti<h1'ncIi, leamxzd HCGP fer State.
5. This is an agpeai against juzzigment of convictien.
A. This Court; While dealing with an appca}. against jud meat of
m “mc=~*~ -<1»fi~–'
8. It is not in dispute that land
140.209/23 of Sooranagi mongg¢% kk
Hozmappa. Though CW1′? was 2; xéitiésfi, ,_
before he could be czxamineé %¢swim$ bggsm ‘1:”A:3a”””:’ can;-t. * A
The brother of c§v17, .7-‘~¥faki1.9’ppa.’A faingappa
Mastammanavar was a _ However, PW :7
did not supyort the cast;-caf 1 .V 1’ ” ‘
9. ‘§’he3 v1r.{;f’1z’1i1{£%:iii’3V’–.sC’-;ca=i3.1:§;éi- ‘;-Lgcusea would submit in
the ab.-se:1c-s:_ : }§x;:i.*ie1:;;¢.’ ifi ref possession and
enjoymént “:;:.’111;vey No.209/ QB, situate at
Sooranagi Vilalagc bj;V Ath£e’«.:éiccuse{i, trial Court should not
_ havgégrxiircd at ‘ai”co1;1pA1usicn that accused had electrocuted
fz:flc%éd___amufld said Land and the accused was
death of Umesh Katenahalli.
}L€), 3~In order to appreciate this submission, it is
to staff: thai the case of grosectztion cannot be
merely because the aztrcused was not the ewncr of
‘ 13.13.91. The prosacution. has miied on the evidence of the
brother of decreased Umesh Katcuahalli and side § of thft
,5 ,
N’ cE-W”‘*
village to prove tha: accused was in posgéssicjfl =
enjoymcnt of said land and accusedchad u ‘
The accused to protect maize crop, :”3.ad::’crc’ctc1ci_féI§cc
said ma and electrocateé the b&bed .
1 1. PW15-Siddafifxgappeifl ‘ VVS313;é£tar, the
than Assistant Execzltivc VA Electricity
Board, who occurrence has
deposed; plf;-cc’v~:cf.-occuxxtnce and found
that ” A’ land bearing survey
No.20§;’.T.2″8.’_ PWT25 has denied the
suggcsti01ViL”*fi1ercxj;ra;s.v p’g’ncLu11di11g of gay win: fixed to an
‘ Q01; neaf”i:h€:…piace of occurxcncc.
V zfiiadical evidence and contents of post mortcm
reveal that Umesh, Katenahafli died due to
: clcctrcczifion. There is no confifivczsy mlafing to this aspect.
A 13. The: crucial poizzrt that would arise for
u determmafion is; « ‘Y\)
“Whether the accused had electrocuted
around land bearing survey No.2G9;’ 2B,. V
Village?”
14. In order to prove faet,V”~.p§§csec1it;ion has
examined as many as ‘wj_it11e«See_s§, as to PW19
and got marked E3X.P.I Seized Materiai
Objects as per:M.'{js:; .1 u
:5. Tbg; pi:*nV2%ect1 {:%cI2Vf$>§tneeees::§viz ?Ws.}., 2, 5, 9, 10 5.3
,'{1 hafe ‘c’A€:§1E£é§i€§te;:V1;’telj§r ‘«.Lé’¢::,g)c-set} that accused was in
possessieiagfixed bearing smvey 910.209/28
of Socgranagti 10 85 1 1 are the owners cf lands
” “adjaee;1t?i:e me hem; survey M209/23. PWs.1, 2, 9, 10
” at the relevant time, accused was
euifisgefing hearing survey No.209/2B on lease basis
accueeti had raised maize crop. PW1 has deposed that
” had erected fence around the said iané and
…_ elect1~ocnted the barbed wire by cormectisrxg the same to main
fIine by a book. These fats are also menéoned in the First
Information lodged by PW} at about 1 ~
imtervenitig night of20/21.08. 1999,
16. The learned Ceunse1.for eecesed
that prosecution has not pmdzieeei.doce1me§ataijr to ‘
prove that land beafij:,.g Sieuate at
Sooranagi Village was enjoyment of
accused for {lee not persuaded
to accept:– L’ H V
Mrfivwas Working as Village
Acceu1e’ta:,n§t<" of 1=*w:4 has {iepfised that
during theegear i99§,_ had cultivated land beam'ng
«_ suxfaey V No.20?'/"EBVV___Qn. lease basis. PW14 had submitted
1_ V 1:je1;*r0,Ift_a$' ';1c:~::: Ex_. P. 10.
" [V§'ifi;j':j1gV'T:=ei;oss~exam1I1' afion, PW14 has denied the
~V sug§e$fiefi"' {hat he had issued a false certificate as per
2:5."
17. PWs.1, 3, 5, 9 to 11 have deposed; the accused
euitivated lead beazing survey No.20′)/28 of Sooran agi
N 5.; ,.. g;v.i;….:
:9:
Village. CW1′? had ieased the said land to .
accused had raised maize crop in ” ‘
From cross-exan::i11at;ion of 3;; 2,:
they did not have any mofrjieee. tow’ “fedse1y * tide ;
accused. I-“Ws.1, 2, 5? 9 viliagers of
Sooranagi, had ditect Asaid land
by the accused. d ‘V
18. is the elder
brother of the complaint soon
after the complaint, it is narrated as to
how occdfimeneed has deposed; and bearing
§ef
Umesh Katenahalli due to e1ee£feeuti.gu bearing
survey 510.209/2B of has not been
CGnUDv€rted’ V »~ ; .
39. é iI'.*=:1,s given evidence relating" seizure of Material objecg Veim ahlminium wire, 16
neelagixeiefieks,’ along with wire, hoider as
etc. 31163:: zirticles were useé to eleetrocute the
“fe;eée. said They were seized fmm the place of
‘ — :3c2c:1r1*e::iee§
‘i;he Zeamed Counsel for the accused has
.. éenteneied that allegeé eye-Wimesses had not seen the
electrocufing the barbed Wire asrounci said land.
“”‘”IT’}:1ere:fc;I’e, their evidence is full ef surmises and
cozajunctures, which I am not persuadeé tea accept.
‘f\_;? – -‘x.,.£’\»\4£[.f>…:
: 11:
21. PWs.1, 2, 5, 9 to 11 had seen the
cultivafing land bearing survey No. 209/28. .
maize crop grown by the accusegd, _Thej,_–*’ ” ”
accused erecting poles around
<:0n:;.mitted by the accused a*£'T a«–..poiIzV1;.'0f2 tixneeV_V:J;;o:3 «see: 1
had anticipated the occuzrence::VV;r1ot{' 51' where
the accused had The acts
were committed a éfi;fi"e1ent poinysff
time. The 3. '11; is direct as we}! as
_. _f1'}:1c:V;<*-ctt–v 1$_et3. zecord to suggest that these
witnesses Vhdsfalsely implicate the accu-sad.
There' was ;1éc~., emility between these witnesses and the
":E1(:(5i1S.t3Ci.."L'eT1l€:I'C a1'e'Wizo reasons to disbelieve evidence of
-..PVW_esu, 1.2,». ‘é>«t;;7 _j .1 3..
A 22; Aaccused has examined DWS. 1 8:. 2 as defence
” ” -T L ‘ ~ . __ “‘»witne$$e”:_=s:;
V’ ” 23. DW1*Fakkirayya fizidramayya Hiremat}:1 has
Wdeposfidg that land in question haé not been fenced. There
was quamhrtl between Erappa Quxagada and the accused.
rue ¢.:1!5»xe-~£-<~~
Therefore, entire cast: is cooked up by the afQI'3_$aid
witnesses against the accused. V.
During croswexamination, DW} has V’
similar incident had taken place the &”
and DWI had taksa initiative .' Rs.80,800/=~. 24. the time,
said Iané was not fenced. the owner
of said the 381116. There was
some and one Erappa Durgada.
Th€f€f0I’C,V;’:iC§”J’§ivSE£1 $333 implicated.
crosné.4£-xa;;_:_;§I2.afi0n, DW2 has admitted that
had Sufi’:-zreé burn injuries to his hanés.
‘D\&i2,«h.é;is that he had not informed the occurrence
to pfiiicé, % ”
From the evidence cf DW2, f find that DW2 has
‘ féglseiy deposed that death of Umesh was due to grounding of
u gay Wire fixed to electric pole erected near the place of
N-c_,£’V*-?7W”‘3″L'”‘
:i3:
occurrence. The evidence of DWI 52; DW2 is
They have given false evidence sa-‘av’e”‘£he&
26. The learned Cozlnsei far es;ccuse§:%;’- V111: L.
evidence of PW15, would that Vevic’3§e11v’ce ?:::+f PW15
would suggest that deat’l§~of ‘due tov§rcA£v111cii11g of
gay ‘Wire fixed to elecaic pole occzxrrence.
27. :1; 4\i$i.€, f: accused had erected iand and accused had _ 2-Vite. The deceased came in
Contact the Wire and died. The defence
thecrjg’ ‘vtigat ’13§ras’V’ respo:usibIe for the death of the
afterfliiiought. There is nothing on record to
esI::1V¢:2y1?u firm: the viiiage had infomled KEI3 that
there was of gay wire near the place of
V The learneci Counsel for the accused would submit
T “that occmrence was not reported to KEB.
We (:1 x..fi\–v~€£1.~-
:14:
This submission cannot be accepted in
evidence of PW15, who at the relevant time was _
Assistant Executive Engineer of I,aI<s1xmesh:sr'-;:;if::'.§$i:l§'HB: -«
Division. A. ' . V
29. The coraplainant,V»PS2_\fs.2g”;*
accused are from the same on
record to indicate that PW 9 to 11
haci motives to accused. The
defence. has ti:a.j.”;91»t«._vt’:I3Lti1’eV..vi’:Vl1agers were against the
accusefi arid -ggféie falsely implicated.
30. Gouskhan Tadakod, the then
Police Iu1:1cspec*£oV’r,” Vhae given evidence relating to investigation
._ sessions Judge or: pmper appreciation
of 5191 ‘edoeumentary evidence has held that at the
V’ _ reieS(an.t””t:sime the accused had raised maize crap in land
survey N0209/2B, situate at Sooranagi Village. He
..h.§d takec the saici iand on lease from CW17–Hcax1appa; the
V accused had erected poles and fixed aluminium wire. The
accused had connected the fenced Wire to electric main line
N C$\’,4L_,_,§./\../’\.»—«£’fL§K-*’,
rm
2 1:) :
by a hook and elecfiocuied the fence to protect ma§.;e c1″cp.
The deceased, who was grazing a cow,
contact with clectzocutcd wires and –
electrocution. AT b V A
On Ive-aypreciation of »eVider’i£:;eA, ‘–I_A. do and
reasons to difier with the View by
Judge. Therefore, I ho}ii~.__1;ha.¥:’ that
accused has eiectrocuted the the said
died dim 1:0
32.’ Theé would arise for cietermination
i.s:- .
VVV”.1}§ihetIA1ce’i’Wi’£vi1e ofience committed by the
V * ea{:c_iis:§e’::¥.eV:i:s–punishable under section 304 Part II
35; ‘i.c«:§a decision ieporied in AIR 1964 so 205 (in the
j “€32ZT,.f’¢§,* of Cherubin Gregory Vs. State of Bihar), the Supreme
has held:-»
“Penal Code (1860), S.3()4A «- Owner f.xi:s:1g
live naked electzic wire of high voltage across
passage to his latrine to dissuade trespassers ~–
No Warning that Wire was five one —- Trespasser
N .c:: 2 /*~«1?*vv~*’=1-*'”””
:16:
getting shock and some time after dying
Occupier is guilty of offence under S.3€)4A_..~..-_
become crime act need not be actionable –
Laying of trap, ifto:’t– Tort.” ‘V
In the case on hand, the accigvsed-.ha%1 ‘¢1¢d;§:ro¢:1:e;1_’
wire fenced around the _ a.
‘crop. In the circumstances, VV..eaa1;ot the lethat the
accused had knowledgei_’_i:3:1at dis. death. The
accused had acted in manner by
e1eet1t3{:iiifiifi£1geA…i;?1e jddteiiced the said iand. The
death {if deceasee’V’d’:was.. to rash and negligence act/C;
committed by the_’acc§1sed. Therefore, I hold the accused
V’ .Qfienee’ y,-=3-.—nishable under seetion 304A IPC.
_V from the judgment of trial Court, the
sentenced to pay a fiflfi of Rs.6(},{)00[ –. En
vieidtyf “feeding that oifence committed by the accused is
V. ,.:{1i1:}«i$h&f[)i€ under section 304A WC, I am of the opinion
E
_’ Sefitefice requires modification. Hi I :”‘/.,_,.»L_§’v’\*’*~’3{“*
:1’?:
34. In the result, I pass the followingz»
ORDER
The appeal is accepted in, ~f}flI’if 19, ‘
acqlxittezti of an offence punizmable
IPC. The accused is convictcctfcr c1″£’e_nceu’ L’
under section 3045 IPQ. ‘£’he W53 for a
period of fifteen days tfizerefore, sentence
undergone by thev.accuse£1″t§::he}ti_&a:1$ sentence. The
rash and accused resulted
in deatt: of xln circumstances, 1 deem it
proper :R§;50,000/~. Out of the same, a
sum pi’ be appropriated towards fine and
Rs.45,00G/- shad} be paid as
the widow of the deceased namely PW}?-
Rataawwa. _ LA A
seen {mm the records, that the accused has
a sum of Rs.60,()00/ – before trial Court. Out of the
hpvgégme, a sum of Rs.5,0{)(}/- 9113}! be appmpréated towards
fine and Rs.45,0{)0f- shall be paici as compensation to
PW12»Ratr::awwa and mmaining sum of Rs.10,0%/- shall be
f Lt’-
{“1
:18:
refunded to the accused The bail hondsif any ~
accused shall stand camclled.
SNN