Veena Rangnekar And Anr. vs State And Others
1999 Latest Caselaw 266 Del

ORDER

S.N. Kapoor, J.

1. This petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 and 401 is directed against order dated 9th September, 1998 relating to framing of charges against the petitioners under Sections 430/336/337/34 IPC.

2. Briefly stated the facts given in the petition are as under:

2.1. The complainant was tenant of the petitioner No.1. There was some dispute relating to electricity charges, as booster pump was connected with the electric meter of the tenant and bother were using booster pump. On 23rd August, 1996 petitioner No.2 Sh. Sharif Rangnekar son of the land lady petitioner No.1 threatened the tenant complainant that he would connect the motor line to upstairs meter and from that point of time they would have only dry wash. At the instance of the land lord two other persons tampered with the wiring and switch board of the booster bump on 23rd August, 1996 at about 11.40 AM. At about 1.45 PM the daughter of the complainant was heating water in a vessel over a hot plate in the kitchen. She got a powerful shock and she dropped it. A few minutes later she opened the fridge and again got a shock resulting in simple hurt. One Mr. K.Swamy an engineer examined and told his wife and daughter not to touch anything as there was 100 per cent leakage enough to kill a weak or old person. As per the report prepared by Dr. Rajender Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer Grade-I of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, the electric current leakage was detected in all electrical appliances fitted in the ground floor which was due to fresh electric wiring coming from the first floor of the premises to the main switch board. It was also found by Engineer of DESU that due to additional internal wires put for some electrical appliance on first floor,leakage took place for the connection were wrongly done by private electrician. According to the complainant, the water supply to the ground floor was diminished deliberately and the wire changing was done to teach them a lesson which could have taken a human life. Accordingly, the charge sheet was filed on the basis of the aforesaid material.

2.2. The accused petitioners have been charged for offences under Sections 430, 336 and 337 read with Section 34 IPC under the impugned order.

2.3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

4. The petitioners have been charged for offences under Sections 430, 336 and 337 read with Section 34 IPC. In so far as the offence under Section 430 is concerned there is threatening statement of the petitioner No.2 that the complainant would have only dry wash. This kind of threat could not be executed without consent of the petitioner No.1 in the circumstances in which it has been done. This provides a strong ground for reasonable suspicion against Petitioner No.1 as well as petitioner No. 2. Probably for this reason in respect of offence under Section 430 IPC, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner did not lay much stress.

5. However, the learned Senior counsel Sh. Latifi has contended that assuming for the argument's sake, but without admitting that some fault occurred in the wiring which caused a shock experienced by the ground floor occupants, no criminal liability could be fixed on the accused Mrs. Rangnekar and Mr. Sharaf Rangnekar unless they had mens rea and they had deliberately instructed the electrician to perpetrate the faulty connection in that manner. According to him that there is no such evidence and the statement of the complainant Sh. Narayanan that he was convinced that the wire changing was done to teach them a lesson which could have taken a human life, is a mere statement of his opinion. Such a statement is not evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. It is unsupported by any cogent grounds. There is no proof whatsoever of mens rea on the part of the accused.

6. It is evident from the complaint that there was dispute relating to electric connection of booster pump with the electric meter of the tenant. The booster pump was also being used for the benefit of the land lady and her son residing on the first floor at the cost of the complainant. On the protest of the tenant/complainant that this arrangement cast an undue burden on the complainant, the landlady and her son decided to shift the electrical connection of the booster pump from the ground floor electric meter of the tenant to the first floor meter. At the same time they needed an extra switch to be installed upstairs to enable them to operate the pump from their part of the house. They also engaged electricians for this purpose to change the electric connection who connected the wire. The wiring was changed and done in such a rash and negligent manner that it endangered life of the daughter of the tenant and caused simple hurt to the daughter of the tenant. Had there been any evidence to the effect that the person who had changed the wire, had done so with an intention to endanger life or to cause injury at the instance of the petitioner No.1 and 2, it might have led to charge of offence under Section 307 read with Section 34.

It may further be mentioned that from the reports of Mr. Rajendra Singh as well as of the DESU official, it is apparent that the wiring was done in a rash and negligent manner. It is not known whether the electrician engaged were qualified electrician or not. The name of electrical contractor has not been disclosed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is not possible to assume at this stage that there was no rashness or negligence in getting the wire changed and there is no ground against them to frame charges for offences under Sections 337 and 338 read with Section 34 IPC.

7. For the foregoing reasons, there is strong prima facie case for all the three offences. Consequently, there is no force in this petition. It is dismissed accordingly.