Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Haribhau Sitaram Thaokar, was convicted by the 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No.23/1998 for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3000. The prosecution case was that the deceased, Ramesh Ghargade, died due to electric shock when he came into contact with a live barbed wire fence around the appellant's sugarcane field. The post-mortem report (Exh.31) confirmed the cause of death as electric shock leading to cardiac arrest. The FIR (Exh.17) was lodged by Madhukar Bante (PW3), the Police Patil, who was informed by a Kotwal on 23.11.1997 at about 6.00 p.m. Investigation was conducted by PSI Gajanan Jawadwad (PW8). The trial court framed a charge under Section 304 IPC, which the appellant denied. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, and the appellant examined one defence witness to show he was not present in the village on the day of the incident. The High Court, after hearing arguments, examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had knowledge that his act of electrifying the barbed wire was likely to cause death. The court noted that there was no evidence to show that the appellant intentionally set up the electrified fencing with the knowledge that it could cause death. The conviction under Section 304 IPC was therefore set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court did not consider the alternative offence under Section 304A IPC as it was not charged. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be set at liberty.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Section 304 IPC - Death by electrocution - Accused convicted for death caused by live barbed wire fencing - Prosecution failed to prove that accused had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death - Conviction set aside - Held that mere fact that deceased died due to electric shock from fencing does not establish that accused had requisite mens rea under Section 304 IPC (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant could be held responsible for supplying electric current through barbed wire fencing around his agricultural field, resulting in the death of the deceased, and whether the conviction under Section 304 IPC is sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No.23/1998 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty.
Law Points
- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- Section 304 IPC
- knowledge
- intention
- circumstantial evidence
- electric fencing
- death by electrocution
