Nanjundappa vs State of Karnataka

Nanjundappa vs State of Karnataka 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 900 OF 2017

Nanjundappa & Anr. … Appellants

Vs. 

The State of Karnataka       …Respondent

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. This   Appeal   challenges   the   judgment   and   Order

dated 07.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka

at   Bengaluru   in   Criminal   Revision   Petition   No.

1048/2010 dismissing the Petition filed by the appellants

herein.   The High Court confirmed the Judgment and

Order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court

convicting the Appellants under Section 304(A) read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and

1

sentencing them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1

year and 3 months and penalty of Rs. 3000/­ each with

default stipulation of Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.

2. Facts shorn of unnecessary details as unfolded by

prosecution are as under:

On 21.11.2003 at around 1.00p.m. Sri Uday Shankar

S/o PW2 was watching TV in his house at Molakalmuru

Town,   New   Police   Quarter   No.   13,   when   there  was  a

sudden   sound   in   the   TV.   Noticing   the   sound,   the

deceased   got   up   to   separate   the   dish   wire,   the   TV

connection   wire   and   the   telephone   wire,   which   were

entwined together. At this point, he felt an electric shock

and his right hand was burnt and as a result of this

shock he succumbed to death. Upon enquiry, during the

course of investigation, it was found that Appellant No. 2,

who   was   a   daily   wage   worker   working   under   the

supervision   of   Appellant   no.   1,   an   employee   in   the

telephone   department,   had,   while   working   on   the   DP

2

Pole, pulled the telephone wire. The telephone wire got

detached and fell on the 11 KV Power line and electricity

passed into the telephone wire. At this time, there was a

sound in the TV at PW2’s house and as the deceased

went to separate the telephone wire and cable wire, there

was a short circuit and thereby, the right hand of the

deceased was burnt and he died because of electrocution.

It is further alleged that  the said incident took place

because   of   the   negligent   act   on   the   part   of

Appellant/accused No. 1 and Appellant/accused No. 2. 

3. The conviction of the Appellants/Accused rests on

circumstantial   evidence   and   the   circumstances

highlighted were as follows:

(1) PW1/doctor’s   report   suggesting   that   death

was due to instantaneous cardiac arrest and

paralysis   of   the   brain   stem   secondary   to

shock. 

(2) Deposition   of   PW9,10,16,   who   were   Police

Staff   residing   in   the   Delhi   police   quarters,

3

stating that they also touched the telephones

in   their   respective   houses   and   felt   the

presence of electricity and immediately threw

away the telephone instruments. 

(3) Evidence of PW1/doctor, who stated that on

the   same   day   he   had   examined

Appellant/Accused no. 2 for injuries as he

had sustained a fall from the pole and an outpatient slip was also issued to him. 

(4) Evidence   of   the   Prosecution   witnesses   that

the   deceased   upon   hearing   noise   from   the

television   set   first   switched   off   the   main

electricity switch and then tried to separate

the wires. However, there was still current in

the wires.

(5) Evidence of PW15, who was a higher officer in

the   Department   of   Telephone   stating   that

Appellant/accused   no.1   and   Appellant/

accused no. 2 were on duty and working on

that day. 

4. The   defence   taken   by   the   Appellants/accused   is

that on the day of the incident, they had not attended

4

any telephone wire repair at the place of the incident and

death of the deceased was not due to their carelessness

and negligence.  While the Appellants/accused have not

denied   the   post­mortem   report   which   attributes   the

death to instantaneous cardiac arrest and paralysis of

the brain stem secondary to shock, the source of the

shock is implied to be the television set and not the

Telephone connection.

5. After   giving   our   careful   consideration   to   the

respective submissions made by the learned Counsel for

the parties and considering the facts and circumstances

of the case and evidences on record even if we take that

the Appellants/accused were in fact working on the DP

pole on the day of the incident, we find it difficult to

believe   that   with   the   alleged   11KV   current   running

through Telephone wire, the wires did not melt; rather

with   the   alleged   volts   of  current   passing   through   the

telephone instruments PW9,10,16 were able to throw the

5

telephone instruments away upon contact and lived to

tell the tale unharmed. Even assuming that the deceased

and the Prosecution witnesses who received the shock

were   wearing   slippers   at   the   time   of   contact   causing

resistance in the current, 11KV is still too strong and any

contact with such a high voltage current in all probability

should have left any person who came in contact dead

and   his/her   body   charred.   For   reference   standard

domestic voltage in India is only around 220V. Hitherto,

the   evidence   by   PW9,10   &   16   is   hearsay   and

circumstantial and not worthy of any credence.

6. Now referring to PW1­Doctor’s evidence; he deposed

that Appellant no. 2 had visited him on the same day of

the incident and had suffered abrasion injuries on his

four fingers of both hands i.e., excluding the thumbs and

abrasions   on   both   thighs.   The  record   shows   that   the

deceased had also suffered abrasion injury along with

burn injuries. PW1 deposed in Examination­in­chief in

6

clear words that “the blood vessels of right thumb finger

and ring finger were burnt and wounds were shrinking.”

In   light   of   these   facts   the   lower   court   came   to   the

conclusion that Appellant no. 2 also suffered abrasion

injuries due to electric shock just as the deceased. This

conclusion however does not inspire confidence in our

eyes bearing in mind that if Appellant no.2 had infact

suffered an electric shock coming in contact with 11KV

high tension line and sustained a fall from the pole he

would   have   suffered   burn   injuries   too   such   as   the

deceased and such a shock along with the fall could

potentially   be   fatal.   However,   the   record   only   shows

abrasions on 4 fingers and thighs. 

7. We also   find   difficult   to   see   reason in   the

submission   that   telephone   wires   were   able   to   carry

current from an   11KV high tension line and did not

immediately melt. It is even more difficult to assimilate

that such current when passed through the television,

7

did not blast the television set and set the entire wiring of

the   house  on   fire.  Be  that   as it  may, the  allegations

against the Appellants are highly technical in nature and

we find that no report or even inspection was conducted

by   a   technical   expert   to   assess   the   veracity   of   the

averments made by the complainants to suggest that it

was due to the alleged acts of the Appellants that the

incident took place.

8. Even   the   evidence   of   PW15   is   circumstantial   in

nature,   who   stated   that   as   per   the   job   sheet,   the

Appellants were working at the Police quarters; however,

there   is   no   eye   witness   to   say   conclusively   that   the

Appellants were infact executing the work at the place

alleged.

9. Here it would be useful to advert to the dictum in

the case of  Syad   Akbar  Vs.   State   of   Karnataka1

  in

1 MANU/SC/0275/1979; 1979CriLJ1374

8

which this Court proceeded on the basis that doctrine of

res   ipsa   loquitur   stricto   sensu  would   not   apply   to   a

criminal case as its applicability in an action for injury by

negligence is well known. In Syad Akbar (supra), this

Court opined:

“29.  Such simplified and pragmatic application

of the notion of res ipsa loquitur, as a part of the

general mode of inferring a fact in issue from

another circumstantial fact is subject to all the

principles, the satisfaction of which is essential

before an accused can be convicted on the basis

of   circumstantial   evidence   alone.  These   are:

Firstly,   all   the   circumstances,   including   the

objective   circumstances   constituting   the

accident, from which the inference of guilt is to

be   drawn,   must   be   firmly   established.

Secondly,   those   circumstances   must   be   of   a

determinative   tendency   pointing   unerringly

towards the guilt of the accused.  Thirdly,  the

circumstances should make a chain so complete

that   they   cannot   reasonably   raise   any   other

hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt. That

is to say, they should be incompatible with his

innocence,   and   inferentially   exclude   all

reasonable doubt about his guilt.” 

10.     In case of circumstantial evidence, there is a risk of

jumping   to   conclusions   in   haste.   While   evaluating   such

9

evidence the jury should bear in mind that inference of guilt

should be the only reasonable inference from the facts. In the

present case however, the conviction of the accused persons

seems wholly unjustified against the weight of the evidence

adduced. As far as the onus of proving the ingredients of an

offence is concerned, in the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami

Vs. State of M.P2

"  this Court held:­

"5   ..... In  our view,  the   onus   of   proving  all the

ingredients   of   an   offence   is   always   upon   the

prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the

accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to

somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the

defence   of   the   accused   does   not   appear   to   be

credible or is palpably false that burden does not

become any less. It is only when this burden is

discharged that it will be for the accused to explain

or   controvert   the   essential   elements   in   the

prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not

however for the accused even at the initial stage to

prove something which has to be eliminated by the

prosecution   to   establish   the   ingredients   of   the

offence with which he is charged, and even if the

onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has

to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not

the   same   as   that   which   rests   upon   the

prosecution........................…"

2

 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC)

10

11. Bearing in mind the above principles which have been

laid down in the decisions of this Court, we are of the view

that   the   Courts   below   were   not   justified   in   convicting   the

Appellants of negligence under Section 304A read with Section

34 IPC.

12. For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution

has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus

between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim.

Perusal of the record reveals that out of various witnesses

arrayed by the prosecution, there are no eye witnesses. Any

evidence brought on record is merely circumstantial in nature.

We are constrained to repeat our observation that it sounds

completely preposterous that a telephone wire carried 11KV

current without melting on contact and when such current

passed through the Television set, it did not blast and melt the

wiring of the entire house. It is even more unbelievable that

Appellant no. 2   came in contact with the same voltage and

managed to get away with a few abrasions. The Appellants

11

therefore are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt; more so,

when there is no report of a technical expert to corroborate the

prosecution story.

13.   Accordingly,   impugned   judgment   of   conviction   and

sentence of the appellants is set aside.  The Appellants are on

bail. They shall be discharged of their bail bonds.

14. As a consequence, the appeal stands allowed.

………………………….CJI.

(N.V. RAMANA)

….…………………………J.

(KRISHNA MURARI)

..………………………….J.

(HIMA KOHLI)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 17, 2022

12