BHAGWATI ADIL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide judgment dated 25.10.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.860 of 2013, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, District Durg convicted the present Applicants along with other co-accused persons, namely, Rajendra Kumar Verma and Narayan Murti Tripathi for offences punishable under Sections 338 , 304A , 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them with rigorous imprisonment for 1-1 year for both the offences. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.10.2017, the present Applicants and other co-accused persons Rajendra Kumar Verma and Narayan Murti Tripathi preferred separate appeals before the Court of Session at Durg. The appeal preferred by co- accused Rajendra Kumar Verma and Narayan Murti Tripathi was registered as Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2017 and the appeal preferred by the present Applicants was registered as Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2017. Both the appeals were decided by a common judgment dated 23.1.2018 by the Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. Vide the impugned judgment dated 23.1.2018, the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg allowed the appeal preferred by co-accused Rajendra Kumar Verma and Narayan Murti Tripathi and acquitted them of all the charges framed against them. However, the Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction and sentence of the present Applicants under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, but in place of their conviction under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code the Additional Sessions Judge altering the conviction, convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that at the relevant time, Applicant/accused Bhagwati Adil was working as an Assistant Lineman and Applicant/accused Arun Kumar Verma was working as a Helper. Co-accused Narayan Murti Tripathi was also working as an Assistant Lineman and co-accused Rajendra Kumar Verma was also working as a Helper. As per the prosecution story, on 10.9.2012, maintenance work of 11 KV Transformer was going on at Village Funda. For this maintenance work, the present Applicants and the other acquitted co-accused persons were engaged by the concerned officials. Labours Uttam Patel (PW4), Krishna Kumar Dhimar (deceased) and two other labours, who were working with electrical contractor Chandra Shekhar Sahu were assisting the accused persons. Allegedly, these persons were called by the accused persons without any authority. Allegedly, both deceased Krishna Kumar Dhimar and Uttam Patel (PW4) were working on the pole on being asked by the accused persons. At that time, electric current started flowing in the lines and as a result of which both deceased Krishna Kumar Dhimar and Uttam Patel (PW4) fell down. Deceased Krishna Kumar Dhimar died and Uttam Patel (PW4) sustained injuries. On a report, the police conducted an inquiry, registered crime and on completion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against all the accused persons. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons as mentioned in the first paragraph of this order. Hence, this revision by the Applicants.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that from the evidence available on record, it is clear that labours deceased Krishna and Uttam Patel and other two labours were not called by the present Applicants or by acquitted accused persons. Both Uttam Patel (PW4) and Lokesh Dhiwar (PW5) have categorically admitted the fact that Uttam Patel and deceased Krishna were working at Village Funda. At that time, all the accused persons were present at Village Devada. The AV Switch of the current, which was shut, was installed at Village Devada. It is stated by Lokesh Dhiwar (PW5) that AV Switch was switched on by Applicant/accused Arun Kumar Verma, but there is nothing on record to show that at that time, Applicant/accused Arun Kumar Verma was having knowledge that at Village Funda, where work was going on, Uttam Patel and deceased Krishna were still working there. Therefore, no negligence is established on the part of Applicant Arun Kumar Verma. It is further submitted that the work was going on at Village Funda and both the present Applicants, as stated by Uttam Patel (PW4), were not present at Village Funda. Therefore, no case of negligence is made out against any of the present Applicants. Thus, the finding of both the Courts below are not in accordance with the evidence available on record. Therefore, the findings are perverse and liable to be set aside.