- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100080 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS) BETWEEN: SHIVALINGAPPA S/O. GURAPPA KOTI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BENNUR, TQ: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GRIRSH. V. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BAGALKOTE RURAL POLICE, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.T.HANUMAREDDY ADDEITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ADMIT THE REVISION PETITION AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT IN CRL. APPEAL NO.109/2013 DATED 31.03.2018 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURT AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT IN C.C.NO.727/2012 DATED 05.10.2013 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304(A) OF IPC AND ACQUITE HIM OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE ORDER THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 05.10.2013 passed in C.C.No.727/2012 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short), confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.109/2013 vide judgment dated 31.03.2018 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ for short). 2. Parties to this revision petition are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. That the accused was chargesheeted by the Bagalkot Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for short). - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 4. It is the case of the prosecution that, one Basappa Shivaputrappa Rampur has filed a complaint alleging, that the deceased Mallikarjun was his brother. Himself and his brother were cultivating the property bearing Sy. No.117/2 belonged to one Sangavva Boli on a lease basis for a period of five years, in the said land there was a electric pole. The accused has taken electric connection to his pump-set from the said electric pole thrown electricity wire lying on the earth itself. The accused had left the wire on the surface of the earth without adopting any safety measures though he knew that, it was dangerous to the human life. 5. That on 28.08.2011 at about 11:30 p.m., the brother of the complainant i.e., deceased Mallikarjun was watering to his crops so cultivated. He came in contact with live current wire which was kept open by the accused. Because of the electruction, his brother Malikarjun died on the spot. With these allegations, a complaint came to be filed before Bagalkot Rural Police Station which was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 registered in Crime No.136/2011 and the criminal law was set in motion. 6. The Investigating Officer after completion of the investigation filed the chargesheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence. The jurisdictional Magistrate took the cognizance of defence. Presence of the accused was secured and he was enlarged on bail. 7. Copies of the Police papers were furnished to the accused person as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short). Thereafter, the substance of acquisition was framed read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. 8. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined 15 witnesses from PW.1 to PW.15 and got marked 20 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.20 with respective signatures and closed prosecution evidence. Thereafter, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied his complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. 9. The Trial Court on hearing the arguments and on appreciation of the evidence found the accused guilty of committing the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and sentenced him as under: “(a) For the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, an accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months and shall liable to pay fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). In default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. (b) As per the provisions of Section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code, PW- 7/Laxmibai, who is wife of deceased - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 Mallikarjun is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from an accused and accused shall liable to pay the same to said widow. Office to forfeit fine amount of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by an accused to state towards expenditure incurred by the prosecution. Office to forfeit MO-1 to State after expiry of appeal period. Prosecution is hereby directed to initiate criminal action against an accused for committed theft of electricity as per the provisions of Karnataka Electricity Act, without fail.” 10. This judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court was challenged by the accused by preferring Criminal Appeal No.109/2013 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court on hearing the arguments and on re-appreciating the evidence passed the judgment on 31.03.2018 confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. This is how now the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 accused is before this Court in this Revision Petition challenging both the judgments of the Courts below. 11. Sri. Girish V. Bhat, the learned counsel for the accused with all vehemance submitts that, most of the witnesses in this case so examined have been turned hostile and there is no eyewitness to the said incident who have seen the deceased coming into contact with live electric wire which has been left open by the accused. He further submits that, on the basis of the evidence of the Electrical Engineer, The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have wrongly come to the conclusion that, this accused was responsible for leaving the live electricity wire in his landed property. He further submits that, there was no occasion for the accused to leave the live wire in his land open which is risky. He further submits that, without appreciating the said fact, both the Courts below have committed grave and palpable error in coming to the conclusion that, the accused is guilty of committing such offence. He further submits that, as the judgments of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 both the Courts below suffers from legal error and without appreciation of the evidence and hence, they are liable to be set aside. 12. As against this submission, Sri. T. Hanumareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate supported the judgments and findings of both the Courts below with regard to the guilt of accused. He further submits that, as the accused is responsible for leaving the live electricity wire on the landed property openly without any indication and he has taken the electricity connection without any permission from the competent Electricity Department itself, shows the negligence on the part of the accused. He further submits that, the owner of the landed property where the said electricity wire was lying belonging to the accused is not in dispute. He would submit that, when the owner of the said landed property where the said live electricity wire was lying that itself, is sufficient to prove that, the accused has left the said live wire in the manner stated in the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 complaint and the complainant and other witnesses have spoken before the Trial Court that, it was the accused who has left open the said live electricity wire. The learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have accepted the version of the prosecution witnesses and have rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. He would submit that, no interference is required in the impugned judgments of both the Courts below. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Revision Petition. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both the sides and perused the records. 14. When the negligence is attributed against the accused of leaving the live wire openly, it is a duty of the prosecution to prove that, the accused is responsible for leaving such a live wire. Unless this ingredient is proved in accordance with law, it cannot be stated that, the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused. The main ingredient that has to be proved by the prosecution is that, it is the accused who left the live wire - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 and death has been caused because of the illegal act of leaving the live wire by the accused. It also must be proved that, the death has been caused because of the rash and negligent act of the accused and accused alone. So also the rash and negligent act must not amount to culpable homicide, therefore, Section 304(A) of IPC excludes all the ingredients of Sections 299 and 300 of IPC. When it is alleged that, the death of the deceased Malikarjun had taken place coming into contact with live wire left open by the accused and accused himself was not knowing about the electric spots, then one cannot attribute latches on the part of the accused and such ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution. 15. Now let me analyze that, whether the evidence placed on record by the prosecution really proves the offence against the accused? 16. Ex.P.1 is an Inquest Panchanama wherein it shows that, the Police Officer drew the Inquest Panchanama as per Ex.P.1 in the presence of Panchas. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 Preparation of this Inquest Panchanama because of death of Mallikarjun by electrocution is not disputed by the defence. The Investigating Officer has stated about conducting of the Inquest Panchanama. Thus Ex.P.1 is proved by the prosecution. 17. Ex.P.2 is the Spot Panchanama showing the exact scene of offence. It shows that, there exists a three line current wire which was quoted with white coating etc., having a length of 300 feet worth Rs.90.00 only. It was seized by the Police Officials. Thus, on reading the Ex.P.1 and P.2 contents of these documents are produced by the prosecution which are not seriously disputed by the defence. 18. Ex.P.3 is a complaint filed by the complainant by name Basappa. He has stated about the death of his brother Malikarjun because of electrocution on account of accused leaving the live wire in his landed property and he coming into contact with said live wire. He prayed the Police to take necessary action against the accused. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 19. Ex.P.4 is the further statement of the complainant. Ex.P.5 is the statement of witnesses who also have been examined. Ex.P.6 to P.12 are the documents issued by the HESCOM i.e., Hubballi Electricity Supply Company Limited dated 19.12.2011. It is stated in these documents that, the accused has not taken the valid electricity connection from the Electricity Board and he has illegally taken electricity connection. The letter dated 19.12.2011 subsequent to so called incident that has taken place. Therefore this document can be accepted to the extent that, the Assistant Executive Engineer has issued this certificate as per the request of the Circle Inspector, Bagalkot. Ex.P.15 is the another letter of Assistant Executive Engineer to show that, on 28.08.2011 there was a electricity supply and illegally the accused has taken the electricity. First time, as per the request of the Police without any inspection, prior to the incident such letter was issued by the Electricity Authorities. Whether accused has really taken the electricity connection illegally or not except this letter no document is produced. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 20. Ex.P.16 is a Postmortem report wherein it shows that, the deceased died because of the electric shock which is not in dispute. Ex.P.17 is the FIR and Ex.P.18 and P.19 are the RTC extracts. While marking these documents, no objections are raised by the defence. Ex.P.20 is the sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer to show the exact place of offence, wires, installation of the electricity poles as well as landed properties of the complainant where they are cultivating and also landed property of the accused. 21. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, PW.1- Irappa Murgeppa Bagewadi is the Pancha to Ex.P.1 - Inquest Panchanama. PW.2 - Mallayya Basayya Mathpati is the Pancha to Ex.P.2. PW.3 - Prashant Basappa Sonaknal is the Pancha to Ex.P.4. These three witnesses have been turned hostile and nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of these witnesses so as to disbelieve their version. The evidence of these PWs.1, 2 and 3 would not help the case of the prosecution in any manner. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 22. PW.4 - Basappa Shivaputrappa Rampur is the eye-witness to the said incident but, he also has been turned hostile. Likewise, PW.5 - Siddappa Sangappa Bennur, is the Pancha to Ex.P.2. PW.6-Anasavva Shivaputrappa Rampur, examined by the prosecution to prove about taking of electricity connection by the accused. She is the mother of the deceased who came to know about the said incident only after the demise of her son Mallikarjun. These three witnesses have also been turned hostile. Evidence of these three witnesses also become inconsequential to the case of the prosecution. 23. PW.7 – Laxmibai Mallikarjun Rampur is the wife of the deceased. According to her, there was a request made by them to the accused not to leave the said live electricity electric wire but, the accused has not responded for the same. But, no complaint was lodged against the said illegal act of the accused. She came to know about the death of her husband only after the alleged incident. According to her:- accused has taken the electricity - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 connection under ground, but, it was kept on the surface itself. For the first time, she speaks all this evidence without any statement before the Police. 24. PW.8 – Mallappa Savalgeppa Budihal. PW.9 – Sadashiv Yanakappa Barker, PW.10-Santosh Mallappa Dandappanavar, PW.11-Sangavva Mallappa Boli are the eye-witnesses. But all of them have been turned hostile. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses would not help the case of the prosecution. 25. PW.12- Ashok Hanamanth Kattimani is the Executive Engineer and he deposed before the trial Court that, he came to know about the death of a deceased Malikarjun on 28.08.2011 because of electrocution. Therefore, he went to the said place at 9.00 p.m. and noticed that, the accused has put the live electric wire in his landed property without taking the valid connection from the concerned Department. The said wire was seized by the Police. He has issued Ex.P.14 – a letter. According to him, when the incident took place, there was a - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 complete supply of electricity in MO No.1. Based upon his evidence only, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have come to the conclusion that, it was the accused who has left open the live electricity wire. There is no proper appreciation of evidence by the court below by evidence of PW12. There is no complaint lodged against the accused for committing such an offence of theft of electricity as well as leaving the live wire in his landed property. 26. PW.13 - Mahadev Lalu Jadhav was an Investigating Officer. He received the complaint and set the criminal law in motion. He went to the scene of offence and prepared the Inquest Panchanama. He recorded the statement of witnesses. To the extent of discharging his official duties. His evidences is to be accepted. 27. PW.14 – Sadashiv Revappa Kattimani is the then CPI of Bagalkot Rural Police Station. He has conducted the investigation and filed chargesheet against - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 the accused. To the extent of conducting the investigation and filing chargesheet, his evidence has to be accepted. 28. PW.15 - Abhayprakash Shivappa Somanal, is the then ASI of Bagalkot Rural Police Station and took up investigation from CW.14 and conducted part of the investigation. He seized MO No.1 service wire containing three line current wire measuring 300 feet and recorded the statement of witnesses. To that extent, I believe the evidence of this witness. 29. On overall reading of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it shows that, the very ingredient of Section 304(A) of IPC as discussed above is not duly proved in accordance with law by the prosecution. First of all the prosecution must prove that, it was purely rash and negligence on the part of the accused. So also it is to be proved the accused has not represented the request of deceased’s wife for removing the said wire and put some devices to avoid any casualty. No such evidence is placed on record. Based upon the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 evidence of PW.12, it cannot be stated that, it is the accused and accused alone is responsible for committing such offence. The so called eye-witnesses have been turned hostile, the other witnesses are the hearsay witnesses. The learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Therefore, this Court can very well interfere with such findings of the Courts as errors have been committed by both the courts. This Court can very well exercise its power under Section 397 of Cr.p.c and interfere into such judgments. There is no connecting links established by the prosecution to prove that, it is the accused who is responsible for such an offence. Therefore, a doubt arises in the case of prosecution and that benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. Hence he is entitled for acquittal by giving the benefit of doubt. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The revision petition is allowed. ii) The judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed in CC No.727/2012 dated 05.10.2013 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot, and confirmed in Crl.A No.109/2013 dated 31.03.2018 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, are hereby set aside. iii) Consequentially, accused is acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and his bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty. iv) Fine amount if paid shall be returned to the accused forthwith digitally. v) Registry to send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment forthwith. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2079 CRL.RP No. 100080 of 2018 vi) Registry is directed to send the operative portion of the judgment to the trial Court and First Appellate Court for compliance through mail. SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PJ/ct-vg LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21