Karnataka High Court
Sri Sreeramu V vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 23.07.2024
Pronounced on : 06.08.2024 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.16281 OF 2024(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI SREERAMU V.,
S/O VEERANAGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BESCOM, WHITEFIELD DIVISION
BENGALURU - 560 066.
2 . SUBRAMANYA T.,
S/O LATE THOTLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BESCOM, WHITEFIELD DIVISION
BENGALURU - 560 066.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KADUGODI POLICE STATION
2
KADUGODI COLONY
BENGALURU - 560 067.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
REPRESENTED BY ITS HCGP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SANTHOSH KUMAR
NO.01, ASIA STREET
A-BLOCK, MATTRUKUDII
RUPPU, NEYVELI, CUDDALORE
TAMILNADU - 607 801.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDL SPP FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
0601/2023, DTD. 19.11.2023, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SEC.304(A) OF THE IPC, 1860 FOR NEGLIGENCE
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNX-B, IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER ARE CONCERNED.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 23.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
3
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
registration of a crime in Crime No.601 of 2023 registered for
offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC pending before
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bengaluru Rural,
Bengaluru. The 1st petitioner is the Executive Engineer and the 2nd
petitioner is the Assistant Executive Engineer both working in
BESCOM at Whitefield Division.
2. Heard Sri D R Ravishankar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri B N Jagadeesh, learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
It is the case of the petitioners that on 19-11-2023 a
complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent/
complainant alleging that the complainant, his wife who was 23
years old and his daughter who was 9 months old were returning
from Tamilnadu. After alighting at Silk Board they boarded BMTC
4
bus, alighted near Whitefield ITPL Main Road and were walking on
the footpath. When they reached Hope Farm, the wife of the
complainant who was carrying his daughter aged 9 months old
comes in contact with the live wire which was broken and lying on
the street. The wife of the complainant due to electric shock of live
wire died on the spot along with the baby. Therefore, the complaint
comes to be registered against several officers, two of whom are
the petitioners, officers of BESCOM, accused No. 1 is the Executive
Engineer and accused No.3 is the Assistant Executive Engineer
working at Whitefield Division. The other accused are the Assistant
Engineer, accused No.2; Junior Engineer, accused No.4 and Station
Operator, accused No.5.
4. The said incident of death of the wife and the daughter of
the complainant became a hue and cry in the locality. It is then,
the 1st petitioner was transferred and the 2nd petitioner was placed
under suspension. The 1st petitioner's transfer became subject
matter of challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No.27441 of
2023. A coordinate Bench of this Court sets the transfer order aside
holding that the transfer was contrary to the Government order
5
dated 7-06-2013. Likewise, the 2nd petitioner calls the order of
suspension in question before this Court in Writ Petition No.27348
of 2023. The suspension order also comes to be quashed by the
very coordinate Bench. After quashment of those two orders,
challenge is now laid to the crime so registered against the
petitioners on the score that observations in the orders of
quashment of transfer and suspension would enure to the benefit of
the petitioners, to hold that for the death of the wife and the child
of the complainant, the petitioners cannot be held responsible and .
therefore, Section 304A of the IPC cannot be invoked.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
would vehemently contend that in terms of roles and
responsibilities and the job chart, the petitioners have nothing to do
with maintenance of wires. At best it could be the Assistant
Engineer who may be responsible and the petitioners are Executive
Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer. It is his submission that
no wrong doing can be directly attributed to the petitioners. He
would place heavy reliance upon the report of Electrical
Inspectorate which holds that it has happened due to high
6
impendence surface for which no wrong doing can be directly
attributed to these petitioners. He therefore contends that
ingredients of Section 304A of the IPC are not made out in the case
at hand. He would seek quashment of registration of crime in Crime
No.601 of 2023.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
would refute the submissions to contend that the matter is still at
the stage of investigation. The role, responsibility or act allowing
the live wire on the street, upon which the wife and the child of the
complainant trampled upon, is attributable to some officers, five of
whom are named as accused. Everybody cannot wash off their
hands on the basis of report of an officer of Electrical Inspectorate,
who is an officer of BESCOM. Therefore, investigation in the least is
necessary in such cases.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7
8. The incident in the case at hand happens on 19-11-2023.
The complainant and his wife were walking on the footpath of ITPL
Main road, along with their 9 months old daughter, in the early
morning hours at 6.00 a.m. A snapped or broken wire of 11 KV, F9
feeder of 66 KW was hanging which could not be noticed by the
complainant or his wife. But his wife comes in contact with the
live/broken wire and dies due to electrocution, at which time she
was carrying 9 months old child also. It is the averment in the
petition that two complaints had already been registered with the
BESCOM helpline seeking help to rectify the wire that was hanging
by local residents. The vital accident happens near Hope Farm
Circle at about 6-00 a.m. This results in huge hue and cry of the
general public. Therefore, a report is sought from the Electrical
Inspectorate in the form of an investigation. The investigation
leads to absolving of all the officers. The report insofar as it is
germane reads as follows:
"... ... ...
G.C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ & ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À G®èAWÀ£É:
C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj«ÃPÀëuÉ £Àqɹ, vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ®¨sÀåªÁzÀ ¸ÁPÁëöåzsÁgÀUÀ¼ÄÀ ,
ºÉýPÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, CªÀ¯ÉÆÃPÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.11.2023 gÀ 66 PÉ« / 11 «zÀÄåvï «vÀgÀuÁ
PÉÃAzÀæ PÁqÀÄUÉÆÃrAiÀÄ E°è£À ¯ÁUï ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀ, PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÁðºÀPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ, Dgï.n zÀQët
«¨sÁUÀ, PÉ.¦.n.¹.J¯ï. gÁeÁf£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢, C¢üÃPÀëPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ(«),
8
¸ÁÌqÁ PÉ.¦.n.¹.J¯ï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÁÌqÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÄÊwæ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ 2£Éà ªÀÄÄRå
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ OzÀÄA§gÁ ºÉÆêÀiï C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmï «zÀÄåvï ¸ÁܪÀgÀzÀ §½ zÉÆgÉvÀ
¸ÁPÁëöåzsÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀƵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV "¢£ÁAPÀ:19.11.2023gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀV£À eÁªÀ
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 03.50 gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è OzÀÄA§gÁ ºÉÆêÀiï C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmï£À J¯ï.©.J¸ï £À°è
§ºÀıÀ: E°AiÀÄÄ £ÀĸÀĽ, J¯ï.©.J¸ï £À »A¨sÁUÀzÀ §¸ï¨Ágï£À°è ºÁzÀĺÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ JgÀqÄÀ
§¸ï ¨Ágï£À ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðPÉÌ §AzÀ PÁgÀt §¸ï ¨Ágï£À°è ±Ámïð DzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ±Ámïð
¸ÀPÀÆåðmï PÀgÉAmï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Cxïð ¥sÁ¯ïÖ PÀgÉAmï ¥ÀæªÀ»¹ ¸ÀzÀj ¥Á¯ïÖ PÀgÉAmï 66 PÉ.«/11 PÉ.«
«zÀÄåvï «vÀgÀuÁ PÉÃAzÀæ PÁqÀÄUÉÆÃrAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÁ j¯ÉAiÀÄ°è UÀÄgÀÄw¹ qÀ§¯ï
N.¹.Dgï/E.J¥sï.Dgï ªÉÄÃ¯É 11 PÉ.« F9 «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀ ¨ÉæÃPÀgï næ¥ï
DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ±Ámïð ¸ÀPÀÆåðmï PÀgÉAmï 11 PÉ.«. F9 «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ°è ¥ÀæªÀ»¸ÀĪÀ
¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è "¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ªÉÊmï¦üïïØ ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ºÉÆÃ¥ï ¥sÁgÀA dAPÀë£ï ºÀwÛgÀzÀ
(ªÀĺÀzÉêÀ¥ÀÄgÀ-ZÀ£À߸ÀAzÀæ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ JqÀ§¢AiÀÄ) ¥ÀÄmï¥Ávï£À°ègÀĪÀ 11 PÉ.« F9 «zÀÄåvï
ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ "©" ¥sÉÃ¸ï ªÁºÀPÀzÀ°è 4412 DA¥ïì «zÀÄåvï ¥ÀæªÀ»¹zÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀPÀªÅÀ
vÀÄA¨Á ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁVzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F »AzÉ eÁ¬ÄAmï ºÁPÀ¯ÁVzÀÝ §ºÀıÀ: «ÃPï
¥Á¬ÄAmï£À°è vÀÄAqÁV ¥ÀÄmï-¥Ávï£À°èzÀÝ ¥Áå«Pï ¸Áè¨ïUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©¢ÝgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¨É¼ÀV£À
eÁªÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 03.50PÉÌ GAmÁzÀ ¥Á¯ïÖ¤AzÀ 11 PÉ.« J¥sï-9 «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ ©-¥sÉøï
ªÁºÀPÀªÀÅ vÀÄAqÁV ¥Áå«Pï ¸Áè¨ïUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©¢ÝzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ 03.55 PÉÌ mɸïÖ ZÁeïð
ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀj 11 PÉ« «zÀÄåvï ªÁºÀPÀPÉÌ °¸ïÖ gɹ¸ÉÖAmï ¥Ávï ¹UÀzÉ EzÀÝ PÁgÀt
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ j¯É ¸Émï PÀgÉAmï (NªÀgï PÀgÉAmï CxÀªÁ Cxïð ¥Á¯ïÖ PÀgÉAmï) d£ÀgÉÃmï
DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀPÀªÀÅ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁeÁUÀÄwÛzÀÝ §¢¬ÄAzÀ (¸À¥ÉèöÊ ¸ÉÊqï)
ZÉÃvÁ£ÁªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀįÉèà EzÀÄÝ ªÁºÀPÀªÀÅ vÀÄAqÁV ©¢ÝzÀÝ ¸ÀܼÀªÀÅ High Impedence
Surface DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 03.50 gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 11 PÉ.« J¥sï-9 «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ
©-¥Éøï£À°è PÀgÉAmï PÀrªÉÄ AiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 03-50 jAzÀ 04.30 gÀªÀgÉUÉ mÁæ¤ìAiÀÄAmï
PÀgÉAmï ¥ÀæªÀ»¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÁÌqÁ ªÀgÀ¢¬ÄAzÀ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Fault current
¨sÀÆ«ÄUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ºÉÊ-EA¦qÉ£ïì ¥Á¯ïÖ «vï ¯ÉÆà PÀgÉAmï d£ÀgÉÃmï DV
DPïð GAmÁUÀÄwÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 05.45 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ F ªÀiÁUÀðªÀÅ
ZÉÃvÀ£ÁªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÉà ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ªÉÊmï¦üïïØ
ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ºÉÆÃ¥ï ¥sÁgÀA dAPÀë£ï ºÀwÛgÀ ²æêÀÄw. ¸ËAzÀAiÀÄð, EªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ
PÀÄ||¸ÀÄ«PÁë °AiÀiÁ ºÁUÀÆ ²æêÀÄw ¸ËAzÀAiÀÄð gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀwAiÀiÁzÀ ²æà ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÄÀ
§¸ï C£ÀÄß E½zÀÄ, ºÉÆÃ¥ï ¥sÁgÀA dAPÀë£ï ºÀwÛgÀzÀ (ªÀĺÀzÉêÀ¥ÀÄgÀ-ZÀ£À߸ÀAzÀæ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ
JqÀ§¢AiÀÄ) ¥ÀÄmï¥Ávï£À°è ²æêÀÄw.¸ËAzÀAiÀÄðgÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ PÀÄ||¸ÀÄ«PÁë gÀªÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß
JwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ ²æêÀÄw ¸ËAzÀAiÀÄð gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀwAiÀiÁzÀ ²æà ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ PÀĪÀiÁgï
gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀÄmï¥Ávï£À ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è£À gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è
²æêÀÄw.¸ËAzÀAiÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ PÀÄ||¸ÀÄ«PÁë gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀÄmï¥Ámï£À°è vÀÄAqÁV
©¢ÝzÀÝ 11 PÉ.«. J¥sï-9 «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ ©-¥sÉÃ¸ï ªÁºÀPÀzÀ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁeÁUÀÄwÛzÝÀ
(¸À¥ÉèöÊ ¸ÉÊqï) §¢AiÀÄ ZÉÃvÀ£ÁªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀįÉèà EzÀÝ ªÁºÀPÀzÀ ¨sÁUÀzÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðPÉÌ §AzÀÄ «zÀÄåvï
C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀQë¸À®Ä §AzÀ ²æêÀÄw.¸ËAzÀAiÀÄð gÀªÀgÀ
¥ÀwAiÀiÁzÀ ²æà ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ «zÀÄåvï ±ÁSï GAmÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ." JAzÀÄ
vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÁßzsÀj¹ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ."
9
¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀPÉÌ «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðªÀÅ vÀÄAqÁV ¥ÉêÀgï -¨ÁèPïì (¥ÀÄmï-¥Àvï) ªÉÄïÉ
©zÀÄÝ Low Fault current path GAmÁV, ¤UÀ¢vÀ ¥Á¯ïÖ PÀgÉAmï ¨sÀÆ«ÄUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzÉ
EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ E.J¥sï.Dgï ªÉÄÃ¯É næ¥ï DUÀ®Ä ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¤UÀ¢vÀ j¯É ¦Pï-C¥ï
PÀgÉAmï ¥ÀæªÀ»¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ E.J¥ï.Dgï næ¥ï DUÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¥ÀæªÄÀ ÄR
PÁgÀtªÁVzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ, ºÀ¼ÀÉzÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²yîUÉÆArgÀĪÀ «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ ªÁºÀÀPÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß
UÀªÀĤ¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀĹÜwAiÀÄ°èlÄÖPÉÆArzÀÝgÉ ºÁUÀÆ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ J¯ï.©.J¸ï £À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ªÀ«Äð£ï ¥ÀÆæ¥ï ºÁV ¤ªÀð»¹zÀÝgÉ ºÁUÀÄ
¸ÀzÀj MªÀgï ºÉqï ¨ÉÃgï ªÁºÀPÀUÀ¼À ªÀiÁUÀðUÀ¼À°è (11 KV Over Head Bare
conductor) CxÀð UÁqÀð (Earth Guarding) C¼ÀªÀr¹zÀÝgÉ ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀ£ÄÀ ß
vÀ¦à¸À§ºÀÄzÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÁßzsÀj¹ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ."
F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è The Central Electrical Authority (Measures
Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulation - 2023
Regulation 14(1), 24(1)(i), 48(7), and 76 (1) G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÁV
vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÁßzsÀj¹ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è F jÃwAiÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀqÉUÀlÖ®Ä PɼÀV£À ¸ÀÄgÀPëÀvÁ
PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
1) ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²y®UÉÆArgÀĪÀ «zÀÄåvï ªÁºÀPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
UÀÄgÀÄw¹, CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀÄÄ.f/MªÀgï ºÉqï PÉç¯ïUÉ
§zÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ ªÀiÁUÀðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¥ÁAiÀÄgÀ»vÀªÁV
¸ÀĹÜAiÀÄ°èlÄÖPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ.
2) «zÀÄåvï ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀĪÀ «ÄÃljAUï PÀÄå©PÀ¯ï,
J¯ï.©.J¸ï, Dgï.JªÀiï.AiÀÄÄ, Intermediate OD ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
EvÀgÉ G¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀ«Äð£ï ¥ÀÆæ¥ï ºÁVgÀĪÀAvÉ
£ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ Dgï.JªÀiï.AiÀÄÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
Intermediate OD UÀ¼À°ègÀĪÀ Protection
system ¸ÀĹÜwAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀAvÉ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
3) ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À°è ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀ MªÀgï ºÉqï ¨ÉÃgï
ªÁºÀPÀUÀ¼À ªÀiÁUÀð (Over Head Bare conductor)
UÀ¼À°è ªÁºÀPÀªÀÅ vÀÄAqÁV ©zÀÝ°è, «zÀÄåvï¤AzÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¸ÀĪÀ
CªÀWÀqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀqÉUÀlÖ®Ä CxÀð UÁqÀð (Earth
Guarding) C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
4) High Impedence Fault GAmÁzÁUÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV
protection j¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ næ¥ï DUÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¸ÀzÀj
10
¸ÀªÀĸÉåUÉ ¥ÀAiÀiÁðAiÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ CªÀ±ÀåªÁVzÀÄÝ, ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ°è
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DISCOMS / Power Utilities¼À°è High
Impedence Fault protection systems UÀ¼À
G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥ÀÆtð ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ°è commercial gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è
DVgÀzÉÃ, E£ÀÄß ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
w½zÀħA¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ FUÁUÀ¯Éà PÉ®ªÀÅ
gÁdåUÀ¼À°è C¼ÀªÀr¹gÀĪÀ High Impedence Fault
protection systems CzsÀåAiÀÄ£À ºÁUÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ
¸ÀA¨sÀA¢¹zÀ ºÉaÑ£À vÁAwæPÀ CzsÀåAiÀÄ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÁßzÀj¹ ºÁUÀÄ
commercial viability CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ High
Impedence Fault protection systems
C¼ÀªÀrPÉUÉ PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸À§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
The recommendation of the Electrical Inspectorate is that old wires
which are in dilapidated condition should be identified and replaced
by UG/overhead cables. Likewise several safety measures are also
recommended by the Inspectorate to avoid such instances in
future. The 1st petitioner on account of the incident had been
transferred and the 2nd petitioner was placed under suspension;
both of which became subject matter of writ petitions noted
hereinabove. Both the writ petitions were allowed by this Court as
stated supra.
9. Since the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has
placed heavy reliance on the order passed by the coordinate Bench
11
setting aside the order of suspension, it becomes germane to notice
the said order. It reads as follows:
".... .... ....
3. The petitioner was working as the Assistant
Executive Engineer and was In-charge of the area in which the
incident occurred. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said
incident the Department of Electrical Inspectorate conducted an
enquiry and submitted an electrical accident report in relation to
that event. In this report it has been stated as follows :
"¸ÀzÀj D¥ÀWÁvÀPÉÌ «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðªÀÅ vÀÄAqÁV ¥ÉÃ¥Àgï-¨ÁèPïì (¥ÀÄmï-¥Ávï)
ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÀÄÝ Low Fault current path GAmÁV, ¤UÀ¢vÀ ¥Á¯ïÖ PÀgÉAmï
¨sÀÆ«ÄUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ E.J¥ï.Dgï ªÉÄÃ¯É næ¥ï DUÀ®Ä ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ
¤UÀ¢vÀ j¯É ¦Pï-C¥ï PÀgÉAmï ¥ÀæªÀ»¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ E.J¥ï.Dgï
næ¥ï DUÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR PÁgÀtªÁVzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ, ºÀ¼ÉzÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀÛ ²yîUÉÆArgÀĪÀ
«zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ ªÁºÀPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¸ÀĹÜAiÀÄ°èlÄÖPÉÆArzÀÝgÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ J¯ï.©.J¸ï £À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ªÀ«Äð£ï
¥ÀÆæ¥ï ºÁV ¤ªÀð»¹zÀÝgÉ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj MªÀgï ºÉqï ¨ÉÃgï ªÁºÀPÀUÀ¼À ªÀiÁUÀðUÀ¼À°è
(11 KV Over Head Bare conductor) CxÀð UÁqÀð(Earth Guarding)
C¼ÀªÀr¹zÀÝgÉ ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¦à¸À§ºÀÄzÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ
ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÁßzsÀj¹ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è The Central Electrical Authority (Measures
Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulation-2023
Regulation 14(1), 24(1)(i), 48(7), and 76(1)
G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÁV vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÁßzsÀj¹ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ."
4. A reading of the said report would indicate that no
specific allegation of wrongdoing has been attributed to the
petitioner. The observation of the report basically indicate that
the incident could have been prevented if certain preventive
measures had been taken. It is, therefore, clear that the
petitioner cannot be attributed directly for that particular
incident.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Bangalore
Electricity Supply Corporation Limited (for short, 'BESCOM'),
however, submits that as the Assistant Executive Engineer, it
was the duty of the petitioner to ensure inspection of studying
voltage and road condition of various feeders, for improvement,
12
for formulating proposals estimates and he was also in-charge
of repair and maintenance works, and therefore, he would have
to ultimately take responsibility, since the report also indicates
that the lines which had snapped were old and were required to
be replaced.
6. In my view, the report of the Electoral Inspector,
as extracted above, only indicates that, had the preventive
action been taken, the incident could have been averted. This
observation is only general in nature and from this no wrong
doing can be individually attributed to the petitioner. Since no
wrongdoing has been attributed directly to the petitioner, in my
view, in the light of the Electoral Inspector report, the impugned
order of suspension cannot be sustained and the same is
accordingly quashed. Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed."
The observation is that the Electrical Inspectorate of the
Department had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report. The
report depicts that it was nobody's fault and, therefore, the order of
suspension is quashed. No doubt, the report did indicate that it
was faulty wire and to avoid such instances in future several
remedial measures are indicated.
10. The issue now would be, whether these officers of
BESCOM could be held prima facie guilty of negligence, as obtaining
under Section 304A of the IPC, as it is not that this is the first
instance or the instance has all of a sudden happened. This incident
cannot be compared to branch of a tree falling on the passer by.
13
The snap or a broken live wire had been brought to the notice of
the Department through BESCOM helpline. It is said that the Junior
Engineer was to attend to it, as it was his duty to immediately
attend to helpline complaints. Merely because other officers from
Station Operator in the hierarchy have different roles and
responsibility, they being officers of BESCOM in the operation and
maintenance department, have to undertake periodical checks of
wires that are snapped and hanging. It is here the role of all these
persons would become applicable.
11. The recommendation is, old wires are not replaced.
Several other instances that happened in the procurement of
materials by the KPTCL are also held to be responsible. If some
sub-standard material is procured, it would undoubtedly result in
such things. Therefore, responsibility would flow from the top brass
to the lowest rung of officials. In the considered view of the Court,
none can escape the responsibility, when it is the act of negligence
in setting things right by the officers. If it is an act of God, it is
again an altogether different circumstance. But, due to negligence
14
of these officers of BESCOM, it led to the unfortunate incident of
precious lives of citizens casually lost.
12. At this stage, it becomes apposite to notice a judgment of
the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of MADHURI PATEL v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH1 wherein it is held as follows:
".... .... ....
9. The question as to whether the petitioner was
gross negligent or not in death of Reshamlal for the
purpose of Section 304A of the IPC, is a matter to be
considered during the course of trial on the basis of
evidence on record. At this stage even before framing of
charges on the basis of material available on record, it
cannot be held that there is no evidence on record
against the petitioner to connect him in the aforesaid
offences including offence under Section 304A of the IPC.
10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Syad
Akbar (supra) has held that where negligence is an essential
ingredient of the offence, the negligence to be established by
the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not negligence
merely based upon an error of judgment.
11. As such, the question of gross negligence, if
any, on the part of the petitioner has to be established by
the prosecution during the course of the trial. As such,
taking the entire material available on record, it cannot
be held that no offence under Section 304A, 287 and 337
of the IPC is made out against the petitioner.
(Emphasis supplied)
1
2021 SCC OnLine Chh.913
15
I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the High Court
of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner before the High Court of
Chhattisgarh was a Junior Engineer of Chhattisgarh State Power
Distribution Company like BESCOM. A deceased therein had
received electrical burn injuries when he was connecting electrical
line in the transformer. The deceased succumbed to injuries and
died. Proceedings against the Junior Engineer were permitted to
continue for offences punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. I
am in complete agreement with what is held by the Chhattisgarh
High Court. There are plethora of judgments rendered by different
High Courts on the issue, some confirming continuation of
investigation or trial against the officers of Electricity Department
and some quashing. The issue, in the subject lis, is with regard to
the petitioners being responsible or otherwise.
13. Merely because Electrical Inspectorate of the Department
has submitted a report holding that nobody can be held
responsible, it would not mean that these petitioners will be left off
the hook, investigation in the least, should be permitted to
continue. Whether there was a complaint registered before the
16
BESCOM helpline prior to the said incident and whether the officers
took note of the said call from the residents of the area and
attended immediately thereto, are all a matter of investigation. It
is trite law that negligence is to be understood to be an omission to
do something, which a reasonable man guided upon the
consideration of conduct of human affairs should do, would omit to
do those reasonable affairs. Consideration of negligence is different
in civil and criminal law. They do not go hand in hand in certain
circumstances.
14. In the case at hand, the wife and the child of the
complainant die. Therefore, there is death due to negligence. Who
is responsible for the negligent act is always a matter of
investigation or trial, as the case would be, as existence of the duty
to take care is the first and fundamental of the ingredient of a
criminal action brought on the basis of negligence. Breach of such
duty would lead to consequences flowing from the action that
happens due to such breach. At the stage of procurement, till the
man on the field who would supervise should be rather diligent that
such instances would be obviated. Unfortunately for the negligent
17
act of officers of the Electricity Department, be it any of the
ESCOMS of KPTCL, or KPTCL, innocent lives of citizens, are so
casually lost. The life of a citizen which is casually lost cannot be
buried, holding no role on the part of the officers of the Electricity
Department. They need to be responsible and accountable.
Therefore, it is high time that these officers wake up, right from top
brass to the man on the field and put their effort to obviate such
instances being repeated overall again, as a citizen cannot bear the
impact of repetition of such negligence, leading to death of lives.
15. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, this is not
a case where investigation in Crime No.601 of 2023 needs to be
quashed on the ground of Electrical Inspectorate of the Department
giving a clean chit to all the officers. Matter requires investigation
and investigation is a must in such cases.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition stands rejected.
(ii) It is made clear that the observations made in the
course of the order are only for the purpose of
consideration of the case of the petitioners under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not
bind or influence the investigation or proceedings
that would be initiated against them or any other
accused persons.
Sd/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:SS
