1 CRA No.814 of 2004 2025:CGHC:58388 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 814 of 2004 1. Ranjay Prasad, Son of Vindeshwari Prasad Kurmi, aged about 24 years 2. Ram Babu, Son of Vindeshwari Prasad Kurmi, aged about 20 years (both are resident of village: Chamanpur, Police Station: Baikunthpur, Distt : Gopalganj, (Bihar) present resident at : Shivajinagar Khursipar, Police Station : Chhawni, Distt: Durg-CG) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station: Chhawni, District : Durg- C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. V. K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 02/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 14/2003 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Durg, C.G., whereby the appellants have been SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.06 11:47:04 +0530 2 CRA No.814 of 2004 convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 304-II of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs. 500/- (each) with default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the morning of 10.09.2002, the deceased Sonu alias Riyazuddin was proceeding towards the locality where his sister resided. On the way, he felt to attend the nature’s call and therefore, moved towards the rear side of Baba Baijnath Welding Works to relieve himself. His sister Noorjahan, carrying a container of water from the house, followed him. Upon reaching the spot, it was found that near the shop of Baba Baijnath Welding Works, a pile of iron and live electric wires were lying scattered. Sonu came into contact with the said live electric wires and was found lying there, dead. His cheeks and skin were burnt due to the electric current, and he succumbed to the electrocution on the spot. On witnessing her brother lying unconscious, Noorjahan immediately rushed home and informed their mother. The mother reached the spot, and soon a crowd gathered after knowing about the incident. The incident was reported at the concerned police station. The police conducted the inquest proceedings and seized the electric wires, conducted the inquest of the dead body; and sent the body for post-mortem examination. 3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the competent 3 CRA No.814 of 2004 jurisdictional Court. After framing the charges against the accused/ appellants, the charges were read out and explained to the appellants, they denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/ appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 21.09.2004 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellants is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that admittedly there is no eye-witness to the incident and the entire prosecution case is based only on weak and unproved circumstantial evidence. It is urged that the mother and sister of the deceased themselves stated that they do not know how the deceased died. Despite these deficiencies, the trial Court convicted the appellants on mere conjectures and probabilities, without establishing the essential 4 CRA No.814 of 2004 ingredients of Section 304 Part II IPC. He would also submit that without there being any cogent and clinching evidence, the conviction of the appellants is bad in the eyes of law. Hence, the impugned judgment and sentence are contrary to the evidence on record and deserve to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The question for consideration before this Court is whether the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 304-II of the IPC, for which the relevant testimonies and evidence on record are required to be examined, as observed below. 10. Noorjahan (PW-1), sister of the deceased stated in her evidence that the incident occurred about one and a half years ago. She and her brother (deceased) had gone out for a morning walk. Her brother went ahead, and she returned home. When she returned and looked towards the spot, she found her brother lying dead. She stated that her brother had suffered an electric shock and that his hand had been burnt, which caused his death. She further stated that she did not know from where the electric current had come. She admitted that the police had interrogated her and she had narrated 5 CRA No.814 of 2004 before the police what she had seen. As she made statements contrary to her police statement, she declared as hostile. PW-1 further stated that she had told the police that she resided in Shivaji Balaji Nagar and was studying in Class 6. She had told them that about two and a half months before the incident, during Ganesh festival, she had come with her younger brother Sonu towards the locality square where a TV programme was playing. After some time, Sonu told her that he was going to attend to nature’s call and went towards the open ground. She followed him carrying a water container. She stated that near Baba Baijnath Welding Shop, at some distance, Sonu was lying on the ground near an iron heap. His cheek was burnt. She immediately went and informed her mother. Her mother came and saw the condition, and other people also gathered there. She stated that the shopkeeper Ranjan was not present there and she had not seen him while running. She further stated that her younger brother’s elbows and left cheek had burn injuries and the skin was peeled. She stated that an electric wire was attached inside the iron heap in the shop, and she felt that the shop owner had intentionally supplied electric current. She thought that her brother must have died due to coming in contact with the current while passing by. She added that she told the police that Ranjan and his brother, who ran the welding shop, had intentionally circulated electric current in the iron heap, and that the death of Sonu occurred due to the current supplied by them. In her cross-examination, she categorically stated that the shop was four steps away from the place where her brother was lying. She did 6 CRA No.814 of 2004 not know who owned the shop. She admitted that she did not know how her brother died or how he came in contact with the current. She further admitted that when she reached the spot, her brother was already lying dead. She also admitted that her brother was lying on the road. 11. PW-2 mother of the deceased stated in her evidence that she lived at Shivaji Nagar, Khursipar Gate, and earned her livelihood through labour work. She mentioned that about one and a half years prior to the incident, her son and daughter had gone out for a morning walk. After some time, her daughter informed her that her son, Sonu (the deceased), was lying on the side of the road. She further stated that she immediately went to the spot along with her daughter and found her son lying on the ground, already dead. She asserted that she did not know how her son had died and was also unaware whether her daughter knew anything about the cause of death. Since her testimony was inconsistent with her earlier police statement, she declared hostile. She further stated that the police had come for enquiry and she had told them that she resided in Shivaji Nagar and earned by labour work. She had also informed the police that around two and a half months prior to the incident, at about 4:00 a.m., her daughter Noorjahan and her son had gone towards the square of the locality and that after about one to one and a half hours, Noorjahan returned and told her that Sonu was lying on the roadside, unconscious, with burns on his left hand and cheek. However, she stated before the Court that she herself did not see any burn marks. She denied having told the police that Sonu was lying near an iron heap or the shop owner had intentionally passed electric current 7 CRA No.814 of 2004 through any iron heap or wire. She also stated that she did not remember seeing any iron heap at the spot. 12. PW-3 Ramprit Kashyap, stated in his statement that he was a resident of Shivaji Nagar, Khursipar and the accused also lived in the same locality. He stated that about two years before, electric current was passing from the welding shop of the accused and that a boy of about 8–10 years had come in contact with the current and died. He claimed that the current was coming from the shop of the accused and that the boy’s cheek had been burnt. He stated that he informed the police. In cross-examination, PW-3 clarified that he had not actually seen the accused applying electric current, but only saw them removing an electric wire from the welding machine at around 6:00 a.m. when he was going out to attend nature’s call. He remained at the spot for about ten minutes and then went to inform others. He stated that the sister and mother of the deceased reached the spot while he was present there. He also stated that the deceased had been lying on the roadside and the welding machine was at a distance of about two feet from him. He admitted that he did not know how the deceased had died and he had only seen the accused removing the electric wire. 13. Upon a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence placed on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case suffers from material inconsistencies and lacks the degree of certainty required for sustaining a conviction under Section 304-II of the IPC. The sister (PW-1) and mother (PW-2) of the deceased, who were relied upon as crucial witnesses, have resiled from their 8 CRA No.814 of 2004 earlier statements and admitted before the Court that they did not know how the death actually occurred. Both witnesses were declared hostile, and their testimonies, when read in entirety, indicate that they had not witnessed the incident, nor could they attribute any specific act to the accused that demonstrated knowledge or intention regarding the likely consequence of death. PW-3, who attempted to support the prosecution, also conceded in his cross-examination that he had not seen the accused passing electric current into any iron heap or wire, and had merely seen them removing an electric wire from the welding machine at some point in the early morning. His statement is at best speculative and does not establish the essential mental element required for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. No other independent witness has supported the version that the accused had intentionally or knowingly supplied electric current which could have caused the fatal injuries. 14. The investigation also appears to be deficient in material aspects. The prosecution has not produced any technical report, inspection memorandum, or expert evidence to establish the presence of a live electric wire at the spot or to show that the welding shop or the accused were responsible for energising any metal scrap. The absence of such foundational evidence further weakens the prosecution case. What emerges from the record is merely that the deceased child was found lying with burn injuries near an iron heap, and the cause of death was electrocution. However, the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with any deliberate or knowing act that could be said to have 9 CRA No.814 of 2004 created a high risk of death. At the highest, the circumstances may indicate negligence on the part of the shop owner in managing the electrical fittings or allowing hazardous material to remain in an unsafe condition, but such negligence does not elevate the act to the level of culpable homicide under Section 304-II IPC. The element of knowledge, which is the sine qua non for attracting Section 304-II, is completely absent in the present case. 15. In light of the above observations, this Court unhesitatingly concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 304- II IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence, even if taken at its highest, does not show that the accused acted with the knowledge that his conduct was likely to cause death. Nevertheless, the material on record does sufficiently demonstrate negligence attributable to the accused, inasmuch as a hazardous electrical condition existed in the vicinity of his welding shop, resulting in the unfortunate death of an innocent child. The established facts, therefore, bring the case squarely within the ambit of Section 304A of the IPC, which deals with causing death by negligence. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-II IPC is altered and modified to one under Section 304A IPC. 16. So far as the sentence part is concerned, in view of the alteration of conviction from Section 304-II IPC to Section 304A IPC, and taking into account the period of custody already undergone by the appellant, the sentence is directed to be limited to the period already undergone. 10 CRA No.814 of 2004 17. Looking to the tragic loss of a young life and the financial condition of the family, this Court is of the view that the parents of the deceased deserve to be compensated to some extent. The appellants are, therefore, directed to pay a sum of ₹50,000/- to the parents of the deceased child as compensation within a period of three months from today. 18. Subject to the aforesaid modification in the conviction, sentence and the imposition of compensation, the appeal stands partly allowed. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 19. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge S. Bhilwar