BISHAN SWAROOP SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks setting aside charge framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 304A of the IPC on the allegation that on account of negligence of the petitioner who was the owner of the factory known as Vishwa Karma Engineering Works, the watchman of the factory Devidutt suffered an electric shock on 14.6.2001 and died on account of the same. It is submitted in the petition that there was no material before the court on the basis of which the charge under Section 304A could have been framed. The petition is opposed at this stage.

(2.) As per the FIR the Police reached the spot soon after Devidutt received the electric shock and it was revealed to the SHO on enquiry that rain water had accumulated in the factory which was being removed by the deceased Devidutt and Murari Lal with the help of a Tullu pump and a GI pipe when the electrocution took place. Deceased was holding the pipe which was submerged in the water and he himself was also sitting in the accumulated water. As soon as Murari Lal switched on the Tullu pump by fixing the wire to the switch board Devidutt received an electric shock which caused the death. The petitioner was not present at the spot. The father of the petitioner Chander Bhan who was present and who asked the workers to remove the water has not been challaned for any offence. In order to connect the petitioner with the offence the Police has recorded a statement of a witness saying that the electric connection of the factory did not have earthing and, therefore, the petitioner must be held responsible for the offence. The difference between the civil liability and the criminal liability for negligence has to be clearly understood. The petitioner who was not present at the spot and in whose factory a worker died on account of electric shock is undoubtedly liable for civil consequences like damages in tort or under the Workmen's Compensation Act. For bringing the negligence culpable under Section 304A of the IPC the death has to be the direct result of a rash and negligent act. Admittedly the petitioner did not cause any recent change in the electric installations in the factory. The installations had been in the same situation for a long time. The sudden incident or the accident mentioned above was not directly attributable to the failure of the petitioner to provide earthing. In support of the petitioner's case on this point a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Ambalal D. Bhatt Vs. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 SC 1150 has been cited, which I find is applicable to the facts of the case and if followed relieves the petitioner of any criminal liability. It has to be seen that the petitioner was actually not present at the spot. He did not either provide the Tullu pump to the workman or fix the wire to the electricity supply board. He was in no way connected with the removal of water from the factory premises. There is no allegation that he asked anybody to remove the water from the factory premises. In this situation, even assuming that there is some evidence of absence of earthing of electric lines, the connection between the incident and the default of the petitioner is too remote to bring about any criminal liability.

(3.) The petition is accordingly allowed. The charge framed against the petitioner vide the impugned order dated. 27.6.2003 is hereby set aside. The petitioner is discharged.