Case Note & Summary
The case pertained to the electrocution death of Sudhakar Girhe due to an illegally electrified fencing on an agricultural field. Zibal Patil and his son Subhash owned a field adjoining the deceased's field. To protect their standing crop from wild animals, Zibal erected an iron wire fencing with wooden poles and connected it to electricity. He obtained an illegal electric connection from the neighboring field of Ramesh Bagaitkar. On 21st October, 1998 at about 7:00 p.m., Sudhakar Girhe went to his field and came into contact with the live fencing, resulting in his instant death due to electric shock. A report was lodged and an offence under Sections 304A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Zibal Patil and the two applicants. During trial, Zibal Patil died and the charge was altered to Section 304II IPC against the present applicants. The trial court convicted both Ramesh and Subhash under Section 304II IPC after examining twelve witnesses, including eyewitnesses Krishna Girhe, Sarita Girhe and Satyafulabai Girhe who stated they had seen the electric wire running from Ramesh's field to Zibal's well, and relying on the postmortem report and the report of the Assistant Electrical Engineer (Exh.62) confirming the illegal connection. The appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 15th December, 2011. In revision, the applicants argued that there was no direct evidence connecting them, that the main accused Zibal was dead, and that the prosecution had not proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The State supported the conviction, pointing to the consistent evidence and the knowledge of the accused. The court held that in revision, it must see whether there was any perversity or illegality and found none. The evidence clearly established that the accused had knowledge that connecting a live electric wire to the fencing was likely to cause death, though without any intention to kill, thus satisfying the ingredients of Section 304II IPC. The conviction was therefore upheld. On sentence, the court considered that the incident dated back to 1998, the accused had been contesting the matter for over twenty years, both were above fifty years of age and were the sole earning members of their families, and they had already undergone ten days of imprisonment and paid the fine. Consequently, the revision was partly allowed, the conviction was maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment was modified to the period already undergone, and each accused was directed to pay Rs.5,000 as compensation to the wife of the deceased within two weeks, failing which they would have to serve the original sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder - Section 304II Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on knowledge likely to cause death but without intention - The accused had illegally supplied and connected a live electric wire to an iron fencing around their agricultural field, knowing that any person touching it could die from electric shock but without intention to kill. The court upheld the conviction finding no perversity in the lower courts' appreciation of reliable evidence including eyewitness accounts and the Assistant Electrical Engineer's report (Paras 5-12). B) Criminal Law - Sentence Modification - Factors Warranting Leniency - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304II - The court modified the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone (10 days), directing each accused to pay ₹5,000 compensation to the victim's wife within two weeks, failing which the original sentence was to be executed. The modification was based on the incident occurring in 1998, the accused litigating for over two decades, their age over 50, and being sole earners of their families (Paras 13-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicants under Section 304II of the Indian Penal Code is justified, and whether the sentence imposed should be modified
Final Decision
Revision partly allowed. Conviction under Section 304II IPC maintained. Sentence modified: applicants sentenced to period already undergone in jail (10 days). Each applicant directed to pay Rs.5,000 as compensation to the wife of Sudhakar Girhe within two weeks from the date of judgment, failing which they shall undergo the jail sentence as directed by the Courts below.
Law Points
- Criminal revision - scope limited to perversity or illegality
- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304II IPC - knowledge that act likely to cause death but without intention
- Sentence modification - long pendency
- age
- being sole earner - sentence reduced to undergone with compensation
