- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8645 CRL.RP No. 100215 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100215 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NINGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA JALIKATTI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: KARLAKOPPA, TQ: BADAMI, NOW AT POLICE QUARTERS DAR NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANTANAGOUDA S/O. GURUPADAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: VIDYAGIRI, 6TH CROSS, BAGALKOT. 2. VISHWANATH S/O. BASAVARAJ PATTANASHETTI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: LINEMEN, R/O: SHIRUR, TQ: AND DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIHG COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8645 CRL.RP No. 100215 of 2019 DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH NAVANAGAR, POLICE STATION BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 ABATED V/O/DATED 24.08.2022) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.06.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10/2012 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 07.01.2011 IN C.C.NO.756/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304 A OF IPC, AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304 A OF IPC AND SENTENCE ACCORDINGLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8645 CRL.RP No. 100215 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.3– State. 2. The complainant, as per Ex.P1, has preferred this criminal revision petition challenging the order of acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.756/2010, dated 07.01.2012, passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC (for short, ‘the trial Court’), and the subsequent confirmation of the said order in Criminal Appeal No.10/2012, dated 18.06.2019, passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (for short, ‘the appellate Court’). 3. The complainant set the criminal law into motion by lodging a complaint on 21.03.2010, alleging - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8645 CRL.RP No. 100215 of 2019 that at about 12:30 p.m., while he was at home, his wife- Vijayalaxmi suffered electrocution and died while drawing water from a tap located near the transformer, despite being shifted to the hospital for treatment. It is alleged in the complaint that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the accused persons in failing to properly maintain the electric transformer. 4. In support of the case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses, PWs.1 to 7, and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. The defence examined 2 witnesses, DWs.1 and 2, and marked documents as Exs.D1 and D2. Additionally, 3 material objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 3. 5. The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, held that the deceased, Vijayalaxmi, died due to electrocution from the transformer. However, it further held that the electrocution occurred as a result of the deceased coming - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8645 CRL.RP No. 100215 of 2019 into contact with a fence, which had become electrified due to a short circuit allegedly caused by a chameleon. It was observed that the chameleon came into contact with an electric wire and an iron rod, resulting in a short circuit, which in turn caused electricity to pass to the fence through the earthling wire. The trial Court extensively relied upon the expert opinion marked as Ex.D1. Based on this reasoning, the trial Court concluded that the electrocution was caused by the accidental entry of the chameleon between the electric wire and the iron rod. Consequently, the trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish any act of negligence on the part of the accused persons and, accordingly, ordered their acquittal. 6. The appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, upheld the order of acquittal and dismissed the appeal preferred by the complainant. 7. The complainant has preferred this criminal revision petition challenging both the aforesaid orders. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8645 CRL.RP No. 100215 of 2019 8. Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel appearing through video conference for the petitioner, submits that the cause of death of the deceased Vijayalaxmi due to electrocution is not in dispute. He further submits that it is also not in dispute that the accused persons were responsible for the maintenance of the transformer in question. Referring to Ex.D1, learned counsel contends that both the trial Court and the appellate Court failed to consider the crucial aspect noted in the report namely, the presence of an object connecting the transformer unit and the fence. He submits that the existence of such an object was a result of the negligent act of the accused persons. It is further submitted that, had the said object not been in place, even in the event of a short circuit caused by the chameleon, electricity would not have passed to the fence. Thus, it is contended that the order of acquittal suffers from perversity inasmuch as it fails to consider the material evidence on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8645 CRL.RP No. 100215 of 2019 9. Respondent No.1 has been reported dead, as recorded in the order dated 24.08.2022. 10. Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, supporting the findings recorded by both the Courts, submits that the electric short circuit occurred due to the presence of a chameleon, and that electricity came into contact with the fence owing to the presence of a tap located adjacent to the transformer. It is submitted that the presence of the chameleon was beyond the control of the accused persons. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish any negligence on the part of the accused in the maintenance of the transformer. 11. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.3– State, supported the case of the prosecution. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8645 CRL.RP No. 100215 of 2019 13. The fact that Vijayalaxmi died due to electrocution on 21.03.2010 is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the accused persons were responsible for the maintenance of the transformer in question. The only point that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the death of Vijayalaxmi was attributable to any negligence on the part of the accused persons. The trial Court and the appellate Court, upon examining the testimony of various witnesses, concluded that the death of Vijayalaxmi was caused by electrocution. The trial Court, relying on Ex.D1, held that the accused persons were not negligent in a manner that resulted in the electrocution. Both the Courts, by referring to Ex.D1, recorded a finding that the cause of electrocution was the presence of a lizard on the D.O.L.O. unit, which led to a short circuit. 14. A perusal of the evidence of DW.1, examined in defence of the accused persons, indicates that the short circuit was caused due to the presence of a chameleon. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8645 CRL.RP No. 100215 of 2019 While the presence of the chameleon may have been the immediate cause for the short circuit, what both the trial Court and the appellate Court failed to consider is the presence of a wire connecting the transformer unit to the fence. A mere short circuit, in the ordinary course, would not result in electricity passing to the fence, which is otherwise an independent structure from the transformer unit. The very purpose of fencing a transformer unit is to prevent electrocution in the event of accidental contact. 15. In the present case, it stands established that the electrocution occurred when the deceased, Vijayalaxmi, came into contact with the fence. The crucial question, therefore, is how electricity came to be present in the fence. The answer lies in the expert report (Ex.D1), which records the presence of a wire connecting the transformer unit to the fence. Had the trial Court considered this vital aspect, it would have had an explanation for the cause of the accidental death. The - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8645 CRL.RP No. 100215 of 2019 omission to consider this crucial material by both the Courts renders their findings perverse. 16. On consideration of the evidence on record, particularly the testimony of DW.1, it is evident that the presence of a wire connecting the fence and the transformer unit was the cause for the electrification of the fence. The existence of such a wire clearly points to negligence on the part of those responsible for the maintenance of the transformer. Since accused No.2 was one of the officers entrusted with the duty of maintenance, the negligence is attributable to him. Accused No.2 is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC considering the incident happened five years back. Instead of imprisonment, sentence can be imposed with fine amount only. 17. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court warrant interference by this Court, as the same are not sustainable in law. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8645 CRL.RP No. 100215 of 2019 18. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. ii. The order in C.C.No.756/2010 dated 07.01.2012 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., and further confirmation in Criminal Appeal No.10/2012 dated 18.06.2019 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, are hereby set aside. iii. Accused No.2 is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Accused No.2 is sentenced with imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/-. iv. Fine amount shall be deposited within a period of three months. In default of payment of fine, accused No.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8645 CRL.RP No. 100215 of 2019 v. Out of the fine amount, Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Vijayalaxmi, on due identification. vi. The order of conviction and imposing of fine to accused No.2, in no way affect the service condition of accused No.2. Registry to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3