HULAGAPPA HUDED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397m r/w Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Koppal, in Crl. A. No. 12/2008 dated 16.06.2010 under which the appeal by the accusedappellant was dismissed by confirming the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Prl. JMFC, Gangavathi, in C.C. No. 91/2008 dated 10.07.2008.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under: On 03.12007 at 2 p.m. the complainant Kaniveppa son of Lingappa, aged 30 years, agriculturist, resident of Hale Hirebenekal, Gangavati, lodged a report wherein it is stated that the accused Hulugappa Huded son of Bharamappa, aged 40 years, residing in front of his house, he was not having electricity connection but had diverted the electricity connection illegally from the electric line and literally committed theft of electricity, despite being warned by the neighbour, i.e., the complainant, thereby asking him not to leave the live electric wire in an abandoned condition and on a particular occasion, the KPTCL people inspected and disconnected the illegal procuring of electricity. That being the case, on 03.12007 at about 7 am, the daughter of the complainant, Kum. Shailaja, aged 4 years, left home for getting milk from the neighbour. As she came to the road, she came into contact with the wire which was nothing but went out of two live wires that was used by the accused, by reason of electric shock, the child died. Upon the complaint filed by the complainant, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed wherein it is stated that the accused, on the said date and time was illegally using the electricity.

(3.) The matter was tried by the learned JMFC, Gangavati and convicted the accused for the offence punishable u/S 304(A) of IPC. Thereafter, the appeal preferred before the learned District and Sessions and Fast Track Court-I at Koppal in Crl. Appeal No. 12/2008, which came to be dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. It is against the said order, this appeal is preferred.