- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100257 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. HASSAN SAB S/O. MAHAMMAD SAB MULLANNAVAR AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 2. MOHAMMAD ALI S/O. HASSAN SAB MULLANNAVAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICUALTURE, 3. HAJARE SAB S/O. HASSAN SAB MULLANNAVAR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICUALTURE, ALL ARE R/O. BACHANAKI, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR-581349. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI GOVIND GOUDA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.S. PATIL AND SRI SANJAY CHANNAL, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) READ WITH SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE SENTENCE AND CONVICTION PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC MUNDGOD IN C.C. NO. 271 OF 2007 BY ITS ORDER DATED 29.12.2009 AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE U.K.KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2010 BY ITS ORDER DATED 23.08.2017 AND ACQUIT THEM FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304(a) READ WITH 34 OF IPC. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.19 10:34:18 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Govind Gouda Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.S.S.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Accused persons have suffered an order of conviction in CC No.271/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine in a sum of Rs.2,000/- which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.11/2010 are the revision petitioners. 3. During the pendency of the revision petition, accused No.1 died and therefore, revision petition against accused No.1 stood abated. 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2017 4.1. Mundgod Police Station filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC. The charge sheet would reveal that accused No.1 was the owner of the land in Sy.No.32 of Bachanaki village and accused Nos.2 and 3 are his sons. Accused persons have grown sugarcane in their land. In order to protect the sugarcane crops from the animals which would grace them, they had fenced the land with barbed wire. However, they had also unauthorizedly connected the electric wire to the said fence. 4.2. On 19.05.2007 at about 7 p.m., accused No.2 connected the electricity line to the fence unauthorizedly. At about 7.45 p.m. on the same day, complainant as well as others went to fetch drinking water. At that juncture, they came in contact with the electric live wire attached to fencing and Sudheer Yegappanavar was electrocuted and died on the spot. Accused No.3 having seen the incident, ran away from the spot without even disconnecting the electricity. Incident was reported to the police and case came to be registered. 5. After thorough investigation, police filed the charge sheet. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2017 6. Presence of the accused persons were secured by the learned Trial Judge after taking cognizance, plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 7. Prosecution examined nine witnesses as P.W.1 to 9 and placed on record 10 documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 10. 8. Wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.5 and Erappa, Mahaveera, Shantappa, Yellappa and other persons were also examined as witnesses. Dr.Lakshmidevi who conducted post mortem examination, issued post mortem report is examined as P.W.7. 9. Detailed cross-examination of prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive materials. 10. Thereafter, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused persons have denied the incriminatory materials but failed to place their version about the incident. 11. Learned Trial Judge subsequent there to heard the arguments of both the sides and convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to undergo six months imprisonment. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2017 12. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.10/2010. 13. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 23.08.2017, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused persons. 14. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused persons are before this Court. 15. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that incident is an accident and there is no material on record to establish that it is the accused persons who are responsible for the electrocution of Sudheer Yegappanavar. 16. He would further contend that just because the land belongs to accused persons, there cannot be an inference that accused are the persons who are responsible for the electrocution of Sudheer Yegappanavar and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2017 17. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event, this Court, upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that owner of the land is no more, accused Nos.2 and 3 are ordered to be set at free by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 18. Per contra, Sri.Praveen Devareddyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments. 19. He would further contend that admittedly there was an erection of barbed wire fencing. It is specifically noted that on 19.05.2007 at about 7.00 p.m., accused No.2 directly connected the electricity line to the fence. On the same day at about 7.45 p.m. Sudheer Yegappanavar and others went in the same road for fetching the water and among them, Sudheer Yegappanavar got electrocuted and died on the spot. 20. Therefore, hardly there is any scope for reversing the order of conviction and showing any mercy for the accused persons and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 21. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2017 22. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the prosecution proves that judgments are suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus, calls for interference? 2. Whether the sentence is excessive? 3. What order? REG. POINT Nos.1 and 2: 23. In the case on hand, death of Sudheer Yegappanavar by electrocution is not in dispute. Same is established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record including the post-mortem report. 24. Further, land belongs to accused No.1 is not in dispute. Likewise, wire erection of barbed wire fencing to the land is also not in dispute. Admittedly, the electricity line from the electric pole has been drawn and it has been connected to the fencing with the help of binding wire. Same is seized by the police apart from seizing the copper pot and plastic pot from the spot. Service wire which has been used as a hook to draw the electricity line from the pole to be connected to the fencing is also seized by the police and is marked as MO.4. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2017 25. Panch witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. So also the complainant and wife of the deceased. Dcotor who issued the post-mortem report has specifically opined that Sudheer Yegappanavar died on account of electrocution. 26. Admittedly, none of these witnesses had any previous enmity or animosity to falsely implicate the accused persons in the case. 27. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, conviction order recorded by the learned Judge in the First Appellate needs no interference, that too, in the limited revisional jurisdiction. 28. In the case on hand, learned Trial Judge has granted six months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC which is a minimum punishment in a matter of this nature. As such, sentence needs no interference by this Court. More so, when there is no mitigating circumstances pleaded and proved. 29. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in negative. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642 CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2017 REG.POINT No.3: 30. In view of the foregoing discussions on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. Time is granted for the revision petitioners to surrender before the Trial Court for serving remaining part of the sentence till 15.04.2025. Office is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 44