DELAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 28.4.2014 passed by the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No. 3/2014, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed a charge against the revision petitioner/accused Delan Singh under section 304 (part II) of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) AS per the prosecution story, at around 11:00 p.m. on 7.9.2013 deceased Brajesh, who was a 14 year old boy, left home telling that he is going in the village to play. Next morning at around 8:00 a.m, his electrocuted dead body was discovered from the field of accused Delan Singh. During investigation, it came to light that in order to protect his crop of maize, accused/ applicant Delan Singh had laid GI wires in his field and had released stolen electric current in those wires so that any human being or animal entering the field would come in contact therewith and would suffer electric shock. After preliminary inquiry, first information report under section 304 -A of the I.P.C. was lodged. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed under the aforesaid provision.

(3.) A perusal of the statements of witnesses Gajraj, Budhe, Surat, Munna and Govindi recorded under sections 161 of the Cr.P.C. reveals that the revision petitioner/accused Delan Singh had deliberately laid GI wires in his field in order to protect his maize crop which was standing in the field. Deceased Brajesh was electrocuted through his foot; therefore, it may safely be assumed that the wires had been laid at a very low height. Thereafter, electric current stolen from the DP, was released in the GI wires. The idea was that any person or animal intending to harm the crop would come in contact with the GI wires and would suffer electric shock. Thus, even if there was no intention on the part of the accused to actually kill any one, a man of common prudence may be imputed with the knowledge that someone is likely to come in contact with the aforesaid wires, suffer electric shock and die. Hence, it is clear that death of deceased Brajesh was not result of any negligence on the part of accused/revision petitioner but was result of a deliberate act coupled with knowledge that such act is likely to cause death; though, without any actual intention to cause death.