- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16487 CRL.RP No. 1578 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1578 OF 2016 BETWEEN: G. H. SRIDHAR S/O G.HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: ASST ENGINEER BESCOM, SANTHEBENNURU SUB-DIVISION, CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577552, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASAD B. S., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. THROUGH CPI, NYAMATHI CIRCLE, NYAMATHI., REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.04.2012 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C., HONNALI IN C.C.NO.914/2008 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.10.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE IN CRL.A.NO.45/2012 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.02.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16487 CRL.RP No. 1578 of 2016 CAV ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by partly modification of the order dated 13.10.2016 in Crl.A.No.45/2012 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, by confirming the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and modifying the sentence awarded by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Court, Honnali, vide judgment and order dated 05.04.2012 in C.C.No.914/2008. 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. The factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.09.2008 at about 12.30 pm, one Mr. Krishna Murthy who was working as a Junior Lineman in BESCOM, Nyamathi Section, received a phone call from one Giriraj about non-supply of power to the area of which he running a computer center. He went along with Asst. Engineer to attend the said complaint. The said Krishnamurthy after having checked the power supply in the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16487 CRL.RP No. 1578 of 2016 meter, he found that there was a problem in the electric pole and he instructed the appellant not to charge the line until he gives signal. When Krishnamurthy was doing the repair work with one wire, the petitioner without waiting for his signal, negligently asked the helper to charge the line. Consequently, the Krishnamurthy got electrocuted and fell down from the pole and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to the hospital where he made his statement before the police regarding the incident and stated that the petitioner was responsible for his death and later, he died. 4. Based on the said statement, initially, the case has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal code (for short ‘IPC’) and after the death of Krishnamurhty on 23.09.2009, the case has been registered against this petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. The respondent police conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses as P.W.1 to 19 and got - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16487 CRL.RP No. 1578 of 2016 marked 15 documents as Ex.P1 to P15. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and modified the sentence by reducing from one year to six months and increasing the fine amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the same. 6. Heard Sri Prasad B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court are required to be set aside as the concurrent findings are perverse, illegal and opposed to facts and law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16487 CRL.RP No. 1578 of 2016 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the Trial Court by ignoring the principles of appreciation of evidence, passed the impugned judgment which is erroneous and the Appellate Court without assessing the evidence of all the witnesses independently, followed the judgment of the Trial Court and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court which is held to be erroneous and requires to be set aside. 9. It is further submitted that, though the prosecution stated that the helper on instruction of the petitioner charged the line of which the deceased was working. However, the said helper neither arrayed as a witness nor traced as accused in the said case. In the absence of arraying him as accused or witness, the act of negligence on the part of the petitioner cannot be made over. This aspect has to be crucial to the case of the prosecution. However, the same has been ignored by the Courts below. Consequently, the impugned judgments are passed which are required to be set aside. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader (for short ‘HCGP’) justifying the concurrent findings submitted - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16487 CRL.RP No. 1578 of 2016 that, the Courts below have rightly recorded the conviction after having appreciated the evidence on record. The dying declaration given by the deceased has been duly proved by the prosecution. The said dying declaration has been uncontroverted. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. Hence, interference in the said findings may not be necessary. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State prays to dismiss the petition. 11. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the documents available on record, it is seen that the petitioner has instructed his helper to charge the line over the phone. On receiving the said information, C.W.20 is stated to have cleared F-6 line in which the said Krishna Murthy was working in the said line stated to have fallen down on the ground. Immediately, he switched off the said line. However, the Investigating Officer has not collected any call detail records to show that the petitioner had called C.W.20 to charge the line. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16487 CRL.RP No. 1578 of 2016 12. Non production of CDR would definitely fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the Courts below have ignored in considering the said requirement. In addition to the same, it is also rightly noted here that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had instructed his helper to charge the line. However, the said helper even though, has been arrayed as accused, he has not been secured to face the trial or his name has not been mentioned in the charge sheet. 13. Having considered the said lacunae of the case, it can be inferred that the Courts below have committed error in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner had committed an offence of negligence in the absence of proper evidence. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below are required to be set aside. 14. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence, dated 05.04.2012 passed in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16487 CRL.RP No. 1578 of 2016 C.C.No.914/2008 by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Honnali and judgment and order dated 13.10.2016 passed in Crl.A. No.45/2012 by the Court of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere are set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS/-