CHANDMAL SAHU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against framing of charge by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, District-Raisen for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC in Session Trial No.310/2013 in pursuant to Crime No-335/2013, registered at Police Station- Begumganj, District-Raisen.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Mahesh is working as a labour in the farm of present petitioner. The allegation against the present petitioner is that the petitioner had illegally connected electric wires in his farm and had neither given any information to anybody nor installed any sign board as a precautionary measure to avoid unhappy incidents. Petitioner had this knowledge that if any person comes into the contact of said wires, he may die. On 25-26.08.2013, Mahesh went to the house of his aunt-Saroj (Mausi) and son of the present petitioner for supplying milk, thereafter he returned at about 09:30 in the night. On the next day morning, when aunt of the Mahesh had gone to the farm, then she saw that one person died on the farm of present petitioner. Thereafter, she informed the police about the said incident. Marge was registered. During investigation, it is found that, Rinku S/o Dhaniram has died due to electrocution in the farm of the present petitioner. Petitioner has spread the electric wire on his farm for protecting the crops of sugarcane because wild animals entered into his farm in the night and destroyed his sugarcane. Deceased had no knowledge about the electricity connection in the farm of the petitioner and he came into the contact of said wires and he got electrocuted and after that deceased has expired. As per post mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death was electric shock. Police has also seized the electric wires from the farm of the petitioner. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed under Section 304 of IPC and trial Court has framed the charges under Section 304 of IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below has committed error in framing the charge for the aforesaid offence, whereas no offence is made out against the petitioner for the alleged offence. The prosecution has failed to collect the material to fulfill the requirements of Section 304 of IPC. Therefore, whole proceedings before the Court below deserve to be set aside. Further, he submits that even if assumed for the sake of argument that whatever is stated by the complaint is true, at the most process could have been issued under section 304-A of IPC not 304 of IPC .