Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vishnu V. Vaze, a Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department, Goa, filed a criminal writ petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of the Final Report filed under Section 173 CrPC in Sessions Case No.49/2014 and an order dated 13.1.2014 (actually 22.9.2016) by which the Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge against him under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The facts are that on 25.11.2006, the petitioner was supervising load re-shuffling at Bicholim LT Site. He had taken line clearance from individual transformer centres and instructed one Bhagwan Gaonkar to open jumpers in front of Dr. Kairo's Hospital pole. While doing so, a person named (not specified in the text) died due to electrocution. The police investigated and filed a charge-sheet, and the trial court framed a charge under Section 304 IPC. The petitioner contended that there was no prima facie case against him as the death was not caused by any act of his but due to the negligence of the deceased or others. The High Court examined the material on record and held that the allegations did not disclose any act of the petitioner which could be termed as culpable homicide. The court noted that the petitioner had taken necessary precautions by obtaining line clearance, and the death occurred due to electrocution of a third party not directly connected to the work. The court observed that the charge under Section 304 IPC requires a high degree of negligence or a direct causal link between the act and death, which was absent. Consequently, the court quashed the Final Report and the order framing charge, allowing the petition. The judgment was pronounced on 16.08.2017 by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide - Section 304 IPC - Quashing of Charge - The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, was charged under Section 304 IPC for the death of a person due to electrocution while he was supervising load re-shuffling. The court held that the material on record did not disclose any act of the petitioner which could be termed as culpable homicide, as the death was not directly attributable to his instructions but to the negligence of the deceased or others. The charge was quashed as no prima facie case was made out. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR/Charge - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - The High Court, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, can quash proceedings if the allegations do not constitute any offence or if the charge is groundless. The court found that the charge under Section 304 IPC was not sustainable as there was no nexus between the petitioner's act and the death. (Paras 2-10) C) Electricity Law - Safety Measures - Duty of Care - The petitioner had taken line clearance from transformer centres and instructed a lineman to open jumpers. The court observed that the death occurred due to electrocution of a person who was not part of the work team, and the petitioner could not be held criminally liable for such an unforeseen event. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the charge under Section 304 IPC against the petitioner for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is sustainable on the basis of the material on record, and whether the Final Report and the order framing charge deserve to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The Final Report filed under Section 173 CrPC in Sessions Case No.49/2014 and the order dated 22.9.2016 framing charge under Section 304 IPC against the petitioner are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- Section 304 IPC
- negligence
- criminal negligence
- rash or negligent act
- duty of care
- electricity safety
- quashing of charge
- Section 482 CrPC
- prima facie case
