NARENDRA KUMAR DHANSUKHLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, a resident of Dhule, challenges his conviction under Section 304-A, I. P. C., whereby he was sentenced to suffer S. I. till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 in default S. I. for six months.

(2.) THE prosecution alleged that the accused complained to the police that on the morning of 29-9-1983 a deadbody was found in the agricultural land adjoining his residence. The dead body was of one Balu an Advasi aged about 32 years and it appeared from the injuries on his hands, that he had come in contact with a live wire and died of shock. One of the electric wires had snapped and was lying about 10' away from the dead body. The police commenced an investigation and arrested '.the accused principally on the ground that the electric meter in respect of the pump fixed in the agricultural land stood in the name of the accused. The learned trial Judge accepted the prosecution evidence which was directed against the accused and convicted him. It is against this conviction that the present appeal has been directed.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge was unduly swayed by two circumstances on record which I need to recount. PW 1, the constable, states that sotto electric wire along with some iron wire was found near dead body. He also states that this wire ultimately lead to the meter. From the description, it is quite obvious that the electric wire was leading to something else but the con­stable has not taken the trouble to find out as to what exactly this electric wire was connected to. From the fact that there was also an iron wire, it is quite evident that the same was used as a support for the electric wire and that both of these had snapped. No investigation has been done for purposes of ascertaining as to when the live wire had snapped and for how long it was lying there. These are all unanswered questions. In the light of this back­ground, the learned trial Judge has laid undue emphasis on the fact that after the police interrogated the accused, he is alleged to have agreed to produce the role of the electric wire and the iron wire. It is self-evident that after the death of Balu, considering the fact that he had died of shock that the wire in question was obviously removed and kept in the shed and the production of this wire by the accused has been treated by the learned Judge as fastening on him the guilt of an offence under Section 304-A, merely because the wire was produced by him. To my mind, the production of the electric wire and the iron wire de hors any other evidence to indicate that the accused was responsible either for installing a naked wire or for leaving a live wire around in such a position that it could have caused the death of anybody and the production by him of two rolls of wire would not be sufficient to bring him within the four corners of the ingredients of an offence under Section 304-A, I. P. C. It is. well settled law that even if the death of a person has been caused through a series of acts or single act, that the prosecution must establish the nexus between those acts and the death and the Supreme Court has crystallized the position in law by summarizing it to indicate that the death must be the direct and proximate cause and not remotely connected.