NIRAKAR AMBUST Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision is to the order dtd. 27/8/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patthalgaon, District Patthalgaon in Sessions Trial No.23/2019, whereby the learned trial Court has framed charges under Sec. 304 IPC against the applicant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 19/1/2019 at about 4.30 AM, dead body of deceased Kadri Beck was found in front of the house of complainant who is son of deceased, and beside the house of applicant. During investigation, it revealed that the deceased died due to electrocution when she came into contact of electric wire fixed by the applicant for lighting his under construction house. Based on this, FIR was registered against the applicant, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant before the trial Court. On 27/8/2019, the learned trial Court framed charge against the applicant under Sec. 304 IPC. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence on record that the electric wire was attached with the house under construction. The place where the incident took place is an open place near the house of the applicant and as such no case is made out against the applicant under Sec. 304 IPC. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as the deceased died due to her negligence. He also submits that mens rea is an essential part for constituting the crime under Sec. 304 IPC, which is completely missing in this case. At the stage of Sec. 227/228 of Cr.P.C., the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out, if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is next submitted that the applicant has simply fixed one electric connection for lighting his under construction house and the deceased came into contract of the live wire, which is only an accident and not as a result of inadvertent act of the applicant, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Chhittarmal , 2007 10 SCC 792 and this Court's order dtd. 13/9/2011 passed in CRR No.255/2011 (Rajendra Sharma and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh.