MOHAN SINGH KORKU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. the applicant has challenged the order dated 9.1.2014 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in ST No.258/2013 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Sections 304 (Part -II), 201 of IPC and Section 136 of the Electricity Act were framed against the applicant.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 14.10.2013 Bhagwat Singh Korku had lodged a report at Police Station Bilkisganj that his son Inder Singh was missing. Again on 18.10.2013 it was informed by Bhagwat Singh Korku that the dead body of Inder Singh was found in a Nala. The dead body of the deceased was in a putrefied condition. In upper part of the body, only bones were visible. The body was recovered by the police and sent the same for the postmortem. The doctor who performed the postmortem could not opine any definite opinion for the cause of death. Thereafter the memo was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 24.10.2013 from the applicant that he distributed some live wires surrounding his field through some electric line and thereafter in the morning he found that Inder Singh came into the contact of the live wire and expired, therefore he threw the dead body of the deceased in a Nala. A full pant of the deceased was also hidden by the applicant and he has shown willingness to produce live wire and full pant. Thereafter open iron wire of 3.8 ft. was recovered and also full pant was recovered. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

(3.) At the time of framing of charges, it is a golden rule that if any rebuttal evidence is submitted by the accused, and if he can be convicted for any offence with the help of the evidence collected by the prosecution, then charges of such offence shall be framed. In the present case, it is nowhere established by the prosecution that the deceased died due to electrocution or on the date of his death, the applicant surrounded his field by electric wire. Under such circumstances, by recovery of full pant or rusted electric wire, no offence under Section 304 (Part -II) is made out against the applicant. Similarly, no offence under Section 136 of Electricity Act is made out against the applicant, because it was not established that the applicant surrounded his field by any iron wire and electric current was flown in that wire. It is not proved that the applicant was the person, who threw the dead body of the deceased in a Nala, and therefore prima facie no offence under Section 201 of IPC is made out against the applicant. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicant can be accepted. Hence it is hereby accepted. The impugned order dated 9.1.2014 is hereby set aside. The applicant is discharged from charges of Sections 304 (Part -II), 201 of IPC and Section 136 of the Electricity Act. The trial Court is directed to drop the proceeding against the applicant. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.