Karnataka High Court

Mr. Mahanthesh S Nagur vs State By Karnataka on 21 October, 2024

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 23.07.2024
Pronounced on : 21.10.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6647 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

MR. MAHANTHESH S. NAGUR
S/O. SIDDAGUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS
JUNIOR ENGINEER IN BESCOM,
RESIDING AT UDAYA LAYOUT,
MANGANHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 060.

... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADESH V.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE BY KARNATAKA
BY JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2 . PAPANNA M.,
S/O. MAHESHAPPA,
2

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
NO. 51, MANGANAHALLI,
SULIKERE POST,
YESHWANTHPUR,
BENGALURU CITY,
BENGALURU - 560 060.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.22675/2022 REGISTERED BY THE
JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION, PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE
FILE OF XLVI ADDL. CMM AT BENGLAURU (46TH ACMM) FOR
OFFENCES P/U/S 285, 427, 304(A) OF IPC, 1860 MARKED AT
(ANNEXURE-D) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS
HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.

THIS CRIMINAL 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

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

proceedings in C.C.No.22675 of 2022 pending before the 46th

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of
3

crime in Crime No.95 of 2022 for offences punishable under

Sections 285, 427 and 304A of the IPC.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is an employee of BESCOM working in the

cadre of Junior Engineer. It is the case of the prosecution that on

23-03-2022 at about 2.00 p.m. one Shivaraj had gone to

Chikkabashti to book Shivahalli Smartha Bhavan for the purpose of

his daughter's engagement. After booking the hall, Shivaraj and

his daughter were returning home on a two wheeler and at about

3.10 p.m. they were near Sri M. Vishveshwaraiah Layout,

Manganahalli Nice Road Bridge next to the transformer of BESCOM.

At that time the transformer beside the road-side burst. Due to the

burst, the old spilled over from the transformer caught fire and

directly fell on Shivaraj and his daughter; both of whom sustained

grave burn injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Victoria

hospital where they succumbed to injuries. Thereafter a crime

comes to be registered against the officials of BESCOM in Crime

No.95 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 285, 338 of
4

the IPC. The Police conduct investigation and the investigation

leads to filing of charge sheet for the aforesaid offences including

the offence under Section 304A of the IPC. The concerned Court

takes cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and 3 others.

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. Taking of cognizance and

continuance of trial has driven the petitioner to this Court in the

subject petition.

3. Heard Sri V.M. Madesh, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that the petitioner has got nothing to do with

the bursting of the transformer, as it has accidentally happened and

for such accident negligence cannot be attributed against the

petitioner who is the Junior Engineer in BESCOM and it was the role

of other accused who are contractor and others who had to upkeep

the transformer and their non-maintenance of the transformer

could have led to the mishap, for which the petitioner cannot be
5

punished for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC

which is death by rash and negligent act. It is his submission that

the act of the petitioner is neither negligent nor rash for attracting

the offence under Section 304A of the IPC.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the

petitioner is directly responsible for the upkeep of the transformer

in his area. It is not in dispute that he is the officer in-charge to

patrol and keep the transformer out of danger. It is his submission

that complaints were pending before the BESCOM to set right the

transformer and it has not been done. Therefore, it is his

submission that the petitioner and others should face trial and come

out clean.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.
6

7. The afore-narrated facts though not in dispute, it becomes

necessary to draw the link in the chain of events. The deceased

Shivaraj and his daughter were travelling on a motorcycle. At

about 3.10 p.m., they were besides the transformer, a transformer

which comes within the jurisdiction of the petitioner, who was the

Junior Engineer for the area in BESCOM. When they come near the

transformer, there is leakage of oil and bursting of transformer.

Due to the leakage of oil, the transformer catches fire and the fire

falls on Shivaraj and his daughter, which caused grave burn

injuries. They were admitted to the hospital where they succumbed

to injuries. A complaint comes to be registered immediately for the

burn injuries suffered by both the deceased. The complaint is filed

by an onlooker i.e., the complainant, who is said to be the relative

of the deceased, reads as follows:

"gÀªÀjUÉ,
ೕ ಸ ಇ ೆಕ
ಾನ ಾರ ೕ ಾ ೆ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು-56.

EAzÀ,
ಾಪಣ.ಎಂ. " ಮ$ೇಶಪ&, 29 ವಷ)
ನಂ.51, ಮಂಗನಹ+,, ಸೂ .ೆ/ೆ ಅಂ1ೆ,
ಯಶವಂತಪ4ರ $ೋಬ+, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತ7ರ 8ಾಲೂ:ಕು,
7

;<ಾ= ಾ=ಸ >ಪ:?ೕ, @ಾ Aಂದೂ ಕುರುಬ.
ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï: £ÀA.9916696513.

Cಾನ=/ೇ.

;ಷಯ:- ನನD ಸಂಬಂE Fವ/ಾಜು & ಇವರ ಮಗಳH 1ೈತನ= ರವರು JK ಚಕMNಾಹನದ :
$ೋಗು 7ರ ೇ.ಾದ/ೆ, ರOೆ7 ಪಕP ;ದು=Q ಕಂಬಗ+Rೆ ಅಳವ>Sದ TಾM Uಾರಂ
ಾ: ಆW ಇಬXYಗೂ ೆಂZ 8ಾW [ೖ ಎ\ಾ: ಸು] ದು^, _ಲ)`ತನ 8ೋYರುವ
ೆOಾPಂ ಅE.ಾYಗಳ ;ರುದ^ ದೂರು.
***
aಾನು [ೕಲPಂಡ ;cಾಸದ : Nಾಸುದು^.ೊಂಡು TೆZDdಯ ಆW .ೆಲಸ
Cಾ>.ೊಂ>ರು8ೆ7ೕaೆ. ನನD eಕPಪ&ನವ/ಾದ Fವ/ಾಜು ರವರು $ೆಂಡ ರತDಮf ಮತು7 ಮಗcಾದ
ಕುCಾY 1ೈತನ= ರವ/ೊಂJRೆ ನಮf ಮaೆಯ ಹ 7ರ NಾಸNಾWರು8ಾ7/ೆ. Fವ/ಾಜುರವರು
ಸೂ\ೆ.ೆ/ೆಯ : Oೆಕೂ=Y] .ೆಲಸ Cಾ>.ೊಂ>ರು8ಾ7/ೆ. ಇವರ ಮಗcಾದ 1ೈತನ=ರವರು 2 aೇ
g.ಯು.S. ;<ಾ= ಾ=ಸCಾ>ದು^, ಮaೆಯ :iೕ ಇದ^ಳH.

1ೈತನ=+Rೆ ಮದುNೆ Cಾಡಲು ನಮf ಏYkಾದ NಾSkಾದ NೆಂಕTೇl ಎಂಬುವನನುD
aೋ>ದು^. ಈ Jನ Jaಾಂಕ 23.03.2022 ರಂದು ಮnಾ=ಹD ಸುCಾರು 02-00 ಗಂTೆRೆ 1ೈತನ=ಳ
ಮದುNೆಯ _Fo8ಾಥ) .ಾಯ).ೆP eಕPಬS7ಯ :ರುವ Fವ+, Oಾfತ) ಭವನವನುD ಬುr Cಾ>
ಬರುವ4<ಾW ನನD eಕPಪ& ಅವರ ಮಗಳನುD JKಚಕM Nಾಹನ ನಂ..ೆಎ-4, @ೆಎ-4926 ರ : ಕ/ೆದು.ೊಂಡು
eಕP ಬS7Rೆ $ೋW ಅ : 1ೌnæ ಬುr Cಾ>, Nಾಪ ಮaೆRೆ ಬರಲು ಮnಾ=ಹD ಸುCಾರು 3-10 ಗಂTೆ
ಸಮಯದ : ನನD eಕPಪ& ಮತು7 ಅವರ ಮಗಳH ಸ ಎಂ.;tೆKೕಶKರಯ= \ೇಔv, ಮಂಗನಹ+, aೈ
ರOೆ7ಯ "Mwx ಬ+ ರOೆ7ಯ : JK ಚಕMNಾಹನದ : ಬರು 7ರ ೇ.ಾದ/ೆ, ರOೆ7ಯ ಬJಯ : ;ದು=Q,
ಕಂಬಗ+Rೆ ಅಳವ>Sರುವ ೆOಾPಂನ TಾM Uಾರಂ ಾ: ಆW ಅ :ಂದ ಬಂದ ಆyz ಸAತ ೆಂZಯು
ನನD eಕPಪ& Fವ/ಾಜು ರವರ [ೖRೆ ಮತು7 ಅವರ ಮಗcಾದ 1ೈತನ=ರವರ [ೖRೆ 8ಾW, ಇಬXYಗೂ [ೖ
ಎ\ಾ: ಸುಟ ;ಷಯ ಮaೆಯ :ದ^ ನನRೆ Rೊ8ಾ7W aಾನು ಕೂಡ\ೇ ಅ :Rೆ ಬಂದು aೋಡ\ಾW ನನD
eಕPಪ& & ಅವರ ಮಗಳನುD Oಾವ)ಜನಕರು ಆಂಬು\ೆ ಮೂಲಕ eಕ8ೆ RಾW ;.ೊ ೕYkಾ ಆಸ&8ೆMRೆ
ಕ+Sದ ;1ಾರ Rೊ8ಾ7Wರು8ೆ7.

ಸದY TಾMನ ಾರಂ_ಂದ ಈ Jನ ೆ+Rೆ|yಂದಲೂ ಸಹ ಆyz Oೋರು 7ದ^ - $ಾಗೂ $ೊRೆ
ಬರು 7ದ^ ಬRೆ| ಸ}+ೕಕರು ೆOಾPಂ ನವYRೆ ದೂರNಾ~ ಮೂಲಕ +Sದ^ರೂ ಸಹ ಅವರು kಾರೂ ಸ}ಳ.ೆP
ಬರದ _ಲ)`ತನ 8ೋYದ^Yಂದ ಅವಘಡ ಸಂಬ;Sದು^, ಈ ಘಟaೆRೆ .ಾರಣ/ಾದ ೆOಾPಂ ಅE.ಾYಗಳ
;ರುದ€ ಸೂಕ7 .ಾನೂನು ಕMಮ ಜರುWಸ ೇ.ೆಂದು ತಮf : .ೋY<ೆ.
8

ವಂದaೆಗcೆ ಂJRೆ,
ತಮf ;tಾK¹
¸À»/-"

In the interregnum, the two, who had suffered grave injuries

succumbed to the same. The Police conduct investigation and file a

final report/charge sheet now adding the offence under Sections

427 and 304A of the IPC. The summary of the charge sheet as

obtaining in Column No.7 reads as follows:

"PÀ®A. 285, 427, 304 (J) L¦¹.
ಈ <ೋ‚ಾ/ೋಪಣ ಪ] ಯ .ಾಲಂ ನಂ4 ರ : ಕಂಡ ಎ-1 ಆ/ೋgಯು ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ
.ೆಂRೇY ; ಾಗದ .ೆ-4 ಉಪ ; ಾಗ ೆOಾPಂ ಅಂಜaಾನಗರ .ಾಯ) ಮತು7 ಾಲನ ಘಟಕ-1 ರ :
ಸ$ಾಯಕ ಅƒಯಂತರ/ಾWಯೂ, J-2 ಮತು7 J-3 ಆ/ೋgಗಳH. ZYಯ ಅƒಯಂತರ/ಾWಯೂ .ೆಲಸ
Cಾ>.ೊಂ>ದು^, ಎ-4 ಆ/ೋgಯು $ೊರಗು 7Rೆ ಆ<ಾರದ [ೕ\ೆ ೆOಾPಂ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಬಸNೇಶKರ
ನಗರದ :ರುವ ಪFoಮ ವೃತ7ದ : ದೂರು SKೕ.ಾರ ; ಾಗದ : .ೆಲಸ Cಾ>.ೊಂ>ದು^, ಎ-1 Yಂದ ಎ-3
ರವರ .ಾಯ)Nಾ=g7ಯು ಾನ ಾರ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹJ^ನ ಅಮf ಆಶMಮJಂದ A>ದು SೕRೇಹ+,
Rೇv ವ/ೆRೆ 79 ಮತು7 136 aೇ Nಾw) ಒಳRೊಂಡಂ8ೆ ;ದು=Q ಉಪಕರಣಗಳ ¸ÀÄ¹ÜwAiÀÄ _ವ)ಹ ೆ
$ಾಗೂ ;ದು=Q " :ನ ಾವ _ವ)ಹ ೆ, - ಇ8ಾ=JkಾWದು^, ಾನ ಾರ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹJ^ನ
;tೆKೕಶKರಯ= ಬ†ಾವ ೆಯ 6 aೇ ಾ:rನ ಮಂಗನಹ+, ಮುಖ= ರOೆ7ಯ aೈ /ೋw ಜಂ` ಬ+2018
aೇ ಜೂ Cಾ$ೆಯ : ಅಳವ>Sದ^ 250 Z\ೋ Nಾ=v Oಾಮಥ=)ದ ;ದು=Q ಪYವತ)ಕ ಸಂˆೆ= 38
Yಂದ ಈRೆ| 3-4 ಂಗ+ಂದಲೂ ಸYkಾW ಪವ ಸ ೆ& ಆಗ<ೆ, ಆRಾಗ ೆಂZ Z> .ಾರು 7ದು^, @ೊ8ೆRೆ
ಕv - ಕTೆಂದು ಶಬ^ ಬರು 7ದು^, ಈ ಬRೆ| ಸ}+ೕಯ/ಾದ Oಾ‰-11 Yಂದ Oಾ‰-15 ರವರು $ಾಗೂ ಇತರರು
ಏYkಾRೆ 5 /ೌಂw UÉ ಬರುವ ೆOಾPಂ ಅE.ಾYಗ+Rೆ CಾA , _ೕ>ದ^ರೂ ಸಹ .ಾಲಂ ನಂ 4 ರ :
ಕಂಡ ಎ-1 Yಂದ ಎ-3 ರವರು kಾವ4<ೇ ಮುಂ@ಾಗM8ಾ ಕMಮ .ೈRೊಳ,<ೆ.

mÁæ ಾರಂ ಅನುD .ಾಲ .ಾಲ.ೆP ಸYkಾW _ವ)ಹ ೆ Cಾಡ<ೆ ಅ ೕವ _ಲ)`ತನ 8ೋY,
ಅದನುD $ಾRೆiೕ "] ದು^, ಇದYಂದ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23/03/2022 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 12-40 Yಂದ 12-50
ಗಂTೆಯ ನಡುNೆ ಸದY TಾM ¥sÁರಂ_ಂದ $ೊRೆ ಸAತ ಆyz Oೋರು 7ದ^ ಮತು7 ಆyz
ಕು>ಯು 7ದ^ ಶಬ^ .ೇ+ದ Oಾ‰-11 ರವರು 1912UÉ ಕ/ೆ Cಾ> ದೂರು ಸ :Sದು^, ಸದY ದೂರನುD ೆOಾPಂ
9

ಪ ಸಕ)z ಪFoಮ ; ಾಗದ : ಎ ಾ+ಯ : ಕತ)ವ=ದ :ದ^ ಎ-4 ಆ/ೋgಯು ಮ<ಾ=ಹD 12-50
ಗಂTೆಯ : †ೌ \ೋw Cಾ>.ೊಂ>ದು^, ಬ+ಕ ಈತನು ಈ ದೂYನ ಬRೆ| ೆOಾPಂ ಅE.ಾYಗ+Rೆ
CಾA _ೕಡ ೇ.ಾWದು^, ಆದ/ೆ ಈತನು ಅ ೕವ _ಲ)`ತನ ಮತು7 ೇಜNಾ ಾ^YತನJಂದ ಸದY
ದೂYನ ಬRೆ| kಾವ4<ೇ ೆOಾPಂ ಅE.ಾYಗ+Rೆ CಾA _ೕಡ<ೆ ಇದು^ದYಂದ ಆ Jನ Jaಾಂಕ:-
23/03/2022 ರಂದು ಮ<ಾ=ಹD 3-10 ಗಂTೆಯ : ಸದY TಾM ಾರಂನ ಆಂತYೕಕ <ೋಷJಂದ
ಪYವತ)ಕದ ಕ"Xಣದ Tಾ=ಂZನ Nೆ Šಂ‹ @ಾಗದ : Sೕ+.ೊಂಡು ಆyz ಸAತ ೆಂZಯು @ಾK\ೆಯ
ಸುCಾರು 10 Œೕಟ ದೂರದವ/ೆRೆ eŒfದು^, ಆ ಸಮಯದ : ಪYವತ)ಕದ ಪಕPದ ರOೆ7ಯ : $ೊಂ†ಾ
ಆZ Nಾ ನಂ .ೆಎ-04-@ೆ;-4926 ರ JK ಚಕM Nಾಹನದ : $ೋಗು 7ದ^ ಮಂಗನಹ+,ಯ NಾSkಾದ
Fವ/ಾಜ 50 ವಷ) ಮತು7 ಇವರ ಮಗಳH ಕು॥1ೈತನ= 18 ವಷ) ರವರ ಸಂಪ•ಣ) <ೇಹದ [ೕ\ೆ ಆyz
ಸAತ ೆಂZಯ @ಾK\ೆಯು ಉದು^ ಗಂƒೕರ ಸKರೂಪದ ಸುಟ RಾಯಗcಾWದು^, JK ಚಕM Nಾಹನವ4
ಸಂಪ•ಣ) ಸುಟು $ೋW _ರುಪಯುಕ7 ವಸು7NಾWದು^, ಸದY RಾkಾಳHಗಳನುD eZ8ೆ Rೆ ;.ೋYkಾ
ಆಸ&8ೆMRೆ <ಾಖ Sದ^ರೂ ಸಹ eZ8ೆ ಫಲ.ಾYkಾಗ<ೆ ಅ<ೇ Jನ /ಾ M ಇಬXರೂ ಮೃತ$ೊಂJರು8ಾ7/ೆ.
JK ಚಕM Nಾಹನ ಸುಟು $ೋWದ^Yಂದ ಮೃತ Fವ/ಾಜ ರವರ $ೆಂಡ Oಾ‰-2 ರವYRೆ ಸುCಾರು
40,000/- ರೂಗಳಷು ನಷ ಉಂTಾWರುತ7<ೆ.

ಈ ದುಘ)ಟaೆRೆ .ಾಲಂ ನಂ 4 ರ : ಕಂಡ ಎ-1 Yಂದ ಎ-4 ರವರ ಅ ೕವ _ಲ)`ತನ ಮತು7
ೇಜNಾ ಾ^YತನNೇ .ಾರಣNಾWರುವ4ದು ತ_ˆೆyಂದ ದೃಡಪ] ರುವ4ದYಂದ ಆ/ೋgಗಳ ;ರುದ€ ಈ
[ೕಲPಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ಅನKಯ ಆ/ೋಪಣ ಪ] ಸ :Sರು8ೆ7."

The summary of the charge sheet clearly pins down the accused.

One of the accused is the petitioner. The submission is that he is

not responsible for what has happened, as the acts are neither rash

nor negligent. He seeks to place reliance upon a judgment in the

case of VISHWAS V. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1. The said

judgment is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the case at hand.

The facts in the said judgment were that Architect of a building was

1
2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1541
10

hauled up for offence under Section 304A of the IPC. The Architect

after having designed the building has nothing to do with what

happened in the building. Therefore, it was held that there was no

rash or negligent act on his part. In the said judgment this Court

has held as follows:

".... .... ....

10. Section 304A of the IPC reads as follows:

"304A. Causing death by negligence.-Whoever
causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent
act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine, or with both."

11. Section 304A of the IPC has two components in it.
The result of death should be out of rash or negligent act by the
accused. Section 304A of the IPC mandates that whoever
causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act
not amounting to culpable homicide be punished. Therefore, the
act should be either rash or negligent.

12. The petitioner, as stated earlier, is an Architect who
had designed the building and had given it to the owner in
terms of the agreement. The owner had entrusted the work of
construction to accused No. 1 under whom the worker on the
day working and unfortunate incident of his death happened. It
cannot be said that design of the house by the petitioner was an
act of rash or negligence that had caused the death of the
worker. It would be too far to stretch Section 304A of the IPC to
contend that a person who had designed the house is
responsible for death of a worker while undertaking construction
under a contractor. In this regard reference is made to the three
Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of AMBALAL D. BHATT v. STATE OF GUJARAT wherein it is held
as follows:
11

"10. It appears to us that in a prosecution for an offence
under Section 304-A, the mere fact that an accused
contravenes certain rules or regulations in the doing of an act
which causes death of another, does not establish that the
death was the result of a rash or negligent act or that any such
act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death. If that
were so, the acquittal of the appellant for contravention of the
provisions of the Act and the Rules would itself have been an
answer and we would have then examined to what extent
additional evidence of his acquittal would have to be allowed,
but since that is not the criteria, we have to determine whether
the appellant's act in giving only one batch number to all the
four lots manufactured on November 12, 1962, in preparing
Batch No. 211105, was the cause of deaths and whether those
deaths were a direct consequence of the appellants' act, that is,
whether the appellants' act is the direct result of a rash and
negligent act and that act was the proximate and efficient
cause without the intervention of another's negligence. As
observed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Omkar
Rampratap [(1902) 4 Bom LR 679] the act causing the deaths
"must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have
been the cause sine qua non". This view has been adopted by
this Court in several decisions. In Kurban Hussein
Mohammedali Rangwala v. State of Maharashtra, [(1965) 2
SCR 622] the accused who had manufactured wet paints
without a licence was acquitted of the charge under Section
304-A because it was held that the mere fact that he allowed
the burners to be used in the same room in which varnish and
turpentine were stored, even though it would be a negligent
act, would not be enough to make the accused responsible for
the fire which broke out. The cause of the fire was not merely
the presence of the burners within the room in which varnish
and turpentine were stored, though this circumstance was
indirectly responsible for the fire which broke out, but was also
due to the overflowing of froth out of the barrels. In Suleman
Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(1968) 2 SCR 515]
the accused who was driving a car only with a learner's licence
without a trainer by his side, had injured a person. It was held
that that by itself was not sufficient to warrant a conviction
under Section 304-A. It would be different if it can be
established as in the case of Bhalchandra alias Bapu v. State of
Maharashtra [(1968) 3 SCR 766] that deaths and injuries
caused by the contravention of a prohibition in respect of the
substances which are highly dangerous as in the case of
explosives in a cracker factory which are considered to be of a
highly hazardous and dangerous nature having sensitive
12

composition where even friction or percussion could cause an
explosion, that contravention would be the causa causans."

13. The Apex Court clearly holds that cause of death
should be a direct consequence of the act of the accused and
that should be an act either rash or negligent and proximate to
the cause of such death. By no stretch of imagination the
petitioner can be hauled into the proceedings for offences
punishable under Section 304A of the IPC in the light of the fact
that he was in any way neither responsible for construction nor
was he present at the place of construction nor even had any
proximity to the act which was either rash or negligent..."

The offence therein would in no manner become applicable to the

case at hand. In the case at hand, the petitioner was responsible

for the upkeep of the transformer despite it being contracted out or

not. It is his responsibility for such patrolling and maintenance of

the transformer. The act of the petitioner may not be rash, but it is

undoubtedly negligent. The said finding is not rendered in the air.

After the accident, the Electrical Inspectorate was asked to conduct

an enquiry as to the reason behind the mishap. The Electrical

Inspectorate gives its report. The preamble of the report and

opinion read as follows:

"ಅಪ"ತದ
ಅಪ"ತದ ಅವ\ೋಕನ:
ಅವ\ೋಕನ

1. ಈ ೆಂZ ಅಪ"ತವ4 ಮಂಗನಹ+, ಮುಖ= ರOೆ7ಯ, Uೆಡರz ಾ=ಂr ಎದುರು ಅಳವ>Sದ^ ;ದು=Q
ಪYವತ)ಕ ಸಂˆೆ=-38ರ ಪಕPದ ರOೆ7ಯ : ಸಂಭ;Sರುವ4ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂJರುತ7<ೆ.
13

2. ಮಂಗನಹ+, ಮುಖ= ರOೆ7ಯ. aೈ ರOೆ7ಯ ಹ 7ರದ : 1x250.ೆ.;.ಎ, ;ದು=Q ಪYವತ)ಕ
.ೇಂದMವನುD (Spun : pole mounted, ;ದು=Q ಪYವತ)ಕ ಸಂˆೆ=:38) ಸ . ಎ"
;tೆKೕಶKರಯ= 66/11.ೆ.; ;ದು=Q. ಉಪ.ೇಂದMJಂದ ;ಸ7YSದ^ 11.ೆ.; ಎ•-12 -ೕಡ ನ
Cಾಗ).ೆP(Coyote ACSR Conductor) ;ದು=Q . ಸಂಪಕ)Rೊ+Sರುವ4ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂJರುತ7<ೆ.

3. ೆಂZRೆ ಆಹು kಾದ ;ದು=Q ಪYವತ)ಕ .ೇಂದMವನುD ಪYFೕ S<ಾಗ,
S<ಾಗ ಪYವತ)ಕ .ೇಂದMದ ಸು8ಾ7
$ಾಗೂ 10Œೕಟ
Œೕಟ ದೂರದವ/ೆRೆ ಪYವತ)ಕದ ನ
: 8ೈಲವ4,
8ೈಲವ4 ಪYವತ)ಕದ ಕ"XಣJಂದ ಕೂ>ರುವ
Tಾ=ಂrನ
Tಾ=ಂrನ welding Cಾ>ರುವ ಾಗದ : Sೕ+.ೊಂಡು (;ದು=Q
;ದು=Q ಪYವತ)ಕದ Tಾ=ಂr
Tಾ=ಂr
Oೊ&ೕಟRೊಂಡು ಒಪ ಆWರುವ4ದು)
ಆWರುವ4ದು 8ೈಲವ4 $ೊರ eŒfರುವ4ದು $ಾಗೂ ಈ ಪYವತ)ಕ.ೆP
ಅಳವ>Sದ^ ;ದು=Q ಸುರ`8ಾ/
ಸುರ`8ಾ _ಯಂತM ಾ ಉಪಕರಣಗಳH (ಎz
ಎz.]
ಎz ].>
> ಾr , 2x250 Amps
MCCB) ಎz.]
ಎz ] ೕw Nೈಯ ಗಳH ಸಂಪ•ಣ)NಾW ೆಂZಯ @ಾK\ೆyಂದ ಸು] ರುವ4ದು
ಕಂಡುಬಂJರುತ7<ೆ.ೆ

4. ಈ 1x250.ೆ.;.ಎ, ;ದು=Q ಪYವತ)ಕವ4 Repair Good ಪYವತ)ಕNಾWದು^, ಪYವತ)ಕ.ೆP
©æÃಥ ಯು_v ಅಳವ>ಸ<ೇ ಇರುವ4ದು $ಾಗೂ Explosion vent .ಾಯ)ಚರ ೆRೊಳ,<ೆ
ಇರುವ4ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂJರುತ7<ೆ. $ಾಗೂ ಸದY ;ದು=Q ಪYವತ)ಕವ4 [।। ಕ;.ಾ ಸಂOೆ}ಯು
ತkಾYSರುವ4<ಾW +ದುಬಂJರುತ7<ೆ.

5. ಈ ೆಂZ ಅಪ"ತದ ಸ}ಳದ : ¨ÉAQUÁºÀÄwAiÀiÁzÀ JAzÀÄ $ೇಳ\ಾದ JKಚಕM Nಾಹನವ4 ಸ}ಳದ :
ಲಭ=;ರುವ4Jಲ:.

6. ¸Àgï. JªÀiï. «±ÉéÃ±ÀégÀAiÀÄå 66/11PÉ.« JªÀiï.AiÀÄÄ.J¸ï.J¸ï¤AzÀ «zÀÄåvï «vÀgÀuÁ PÉÃAzÀæzÀ°è
¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ \ಾ‹ ಪ4ಸ7ಕವನುD ಪYFೕ S<ಾಗ 11 PÉ.« J¥sï-12 ¦üqÀgÉÎ C¼ÀªÀr¹zÀÝ «zÀÄåvï
¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÁ, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ ಉಪಕರಣಗಳH ಅಪ"ತNಾದ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÁAiÀÄðZÀgÀuÉUÉÆ¼ÀîzÉ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ
PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

ಅƒ ಾMಯ:
ಾMಯ

[ೕಲPಂಡ ತ_ˆಾಂಶಗಳನುD ಕೂಲಂಕುಷNಾW ಪYFೕ S<ಾಗ: 1x250PÉ.«.J ;ದು=Q
ಪYವತ)ಕವ4 (;ದು=Q ಪYವತ)ಕ ಸಂˆೆ=: 38) repair good ಪYವತ)ಕNಾWದು^, ಈ
ಪYವತ)ಕವನುD ಜೂ 2018ರ : ಬದ\ಾyS 1ಾಲaೆRೋ+Sರುವ4<ಾW ಸಂಬಂJSದ ಅE.ಾYಗಳH
+Sದು^, ಪYವತ)ಕವ4 ದುರS}Rೊಂಡ (repair good) ಪYವತ)ಕNಾದ^Yಂದ, ಪYವತ)ದ ©æÃಥ
ಯು_v ಅಳವ>ಸ<ೇ, Conservator Tಾ=ಂrನ ©æÃxÀ ೈ--ಅನುD 8ೆ/ೆದ S} ಯ : (Open)
"] ದ^Yಂದ ಈ ೈgನ ಮುˆಾAತರ ಧೂ+ನ/ ಇತ/ೆ ಕಣಗಳH ಪYವತ)ಕದ : ಪMNೇFSದ^Yಂದ $ಾಗೂ
14

Explosion vent .ಾಯ)ಚರ ೆRೊಳ,<ೆ 8ೈಲವ4 ಅEಕ 8ಾಪCಾನJಂದ expand ಆW ಅEಕ
ಒತ7ಡJಂದ (Over pressure) ಪYವತ)ಕದ : ಆಂತYಕ <ೋಷ ಉಂTಾWದ^Yಂದ ಪYವತ)ಕವ4
Oೊ&ೕಟRೊಂಡು, ಪYತ)ಕದ :ನ 8ೈಲವ4 $ೊರ eಮುfವ ಸಮಯದ : ಅ<ೇ Cಾಗ)ದ : JKಚಕM
Nಾಹನದ : $ಾದು$ೋಗು 7ದ^ FMೕ. Fವ/ಾ™ $ಾಗೂ ಇವರ ಮಗಳH ಕುCಾY. 1ೈತನ=ರವರುಗಳ [ೕ\ೆ
ಆಕSfಕNಾW "J^ದ^Yಂದ ಸುಟ RಾಯಗcಾW ಈ ೆಂZ ಅಪ"ತ ಸಂಭ;S ಮೃತಪ] ರು8ಾ7/ೆ.

ಸಂಬಂದಪಟ ೆOಾPಂ ಅE.ಾYಗಳH
ಅE.ಾYಗಳH ;ದು=Q ಪYವತ)ಕವನುD _ಯCಾನುOಾರ .ಾಲ-
.ಾಲ
.ಾಲ.ೆP ಾಲaೆCಾ>,
ಾಲaೆCಾ> ಪYವತ)ಕದ : 8ೈಲ $ಾಗೂ Explosion vent ಅನುD ಸುS} ಯ :
_ವ)AS $ಾಗೂ ಪYವತ).ೆP ©æÃಥ ಅಳವ>S ಪYವತ)ಕದ ಸುರ`8ೆಯನುD .ಾ ಾ>ದ^/ೆ ಈ
ಅಪ"ತವನುD ತg&ಸಬಹುJ8ೆ7ಂದು [ೕ\ೊDೕಟ.ೆP ಅƒ ಾMyಸ\ಾW<ೆ
ಾMyಸ\ಾW<ೆ.
W<ೆ ಆದ^Yಂದ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ;ದು=Q
ಸರಬ/ಾಜು ಕಂಪ_yಂದ .ೇಂJMೕಯ ;ದು=ಚšZ7 ಾME.ಾರ (ಸುರ`8ೆ
ಸುರ`8ೆ ಮತು7 ;ದು=Q ಪ•/ೈ.ೆRೆ
ಸಂಬಂESದ ಕMಮಗಳH)-2010ರ
ಕMಮಗಳH ರ _ಯಮ ಸಂˆೆ=-12(1)ರ
ಸಂˆೆ= ರ ಉಲ:ಂಘaೆkಾWರುತ7<ೆ."
ೆ

(Emphasis added)

The Electrical Inspectorate clearly observes that BESCOM officers

who are responsible should have checked oil leakage in the

explosion vent and repaired it intermittently and if that had been

done the mishap could have been easily avoided. Therefore, there

has been dereliction of duty on the part of the officers of BESCOM.

8. Reference being made to the judgments of the Apex Court

in the cases of CHERUBIN GREGORY V. STATE OF BIHAR2 and

2
1963 SCC OnLine SC 70
15

SUSHIL ANSAL V. STATE3, would be apposite. The Apex Court in

the case of CHERUBIN GREGORY supra has held as follows:

".... .... ....

4. The voltage of the current passing through the naked
wire being high enough to be lethal, there could be no dispute
that charging it with current of that voltage was a "rash act"
done in reckless disregard of the serious consequences to
people coming in contact with it.

.... .... ....

7. Learned counsel, however, tried to adopt a different
approach. The contention was that the deceased was a
trespasser and that there was no duty owed by an occupier like
the accused towards the trespasser and therefore the latter
would have had no cause of action for damages for the injury
inflicted and that if the act of the accused was not a tort, it
could not also be a crime. There is no substance in this line of
argument. In the first place, where we have a Code like the
Indian Penal Code which defines with particularity the
ingredients of a crime and the defences open to an accused
charged with any of the offences there set out we consider that
it would not be proper or justifiable to permit the invocation of
some Common Law principle outside that Code for the purpose
of treating what on the words of the statute is a crime into a
permissible or other than unlawful act. But that apart, learned
counsel is also not right in his submission that the act of the
accused as a result of which the deceased suffered injuries
resulting in her death was not an actionable wrong. A trespasser
is not an outlaw, a caput lupinem. The mere fact that the person
entering a land is a trespasser does not entitle the owner or
occupier to inflict on him personal injury by direct violence and
the same principle would govern the infliction of injury by
indirectly doing something on the land the effect of which he
must know was likely to cause serious injury to the trespasser.
Thus in England it has been held that one who sets spring-guns
to shoot at trespassers is guilty of a tort and that the person

3
(2014)6 SCC 173
16

injured is entitled to recover. The laying of such a trap, and
there is little difference between the spring-gun which was the
trap with which the English Courts had to deal and the naked
live wire in the present case, is in truth "an arrangement to
shoot a man without personally firing a shot". It is, no doubt,
true that the treaspasser enters the property at his own risk and
the occupier owes no duty to take any reasonable care for his
protection, but at the same time the occupier is not entitled to
do wilfully acts such as set a trap or set a naked live wire with
the deliberate intention of causing harm to trespassers or in
reckless disregard of the presence of the trespassers. As we
pointed out earlier, the voltage of the current fed into the wire
precludes any contention that it was merely a reasonable
precaution for the protection of private property. The position as
to the obligation of occupiers towards trespassers has been
neatly summarised by the Law Reform Committee of the United
Kingdom in the following words:

"The trespasser enters entirely at his own risk, but
the occupier must not set traps designed to do him bodily
harm or to do any act calculated to do bodily harm to the
trespasser whom he knows to be or who to his knowledge is
likely to be on his premises. For example, he must not set
man-traps or spring-guns. This is no more than ordinary
civilised behaviour."

Judged in the light of these tests, it is clear that the point
urged is wholly without merit."

Further, the Apex Court in the case of SUSHIL ANSAL supra, has

held as follows:

".... .... ....

104. That brings us to the question whether and if so
what is the effect of a statutory obligation to care for the safety
of the visitors to a cinema hall, where a duty to care otherwise
exists under the common law. The answer can be best provided
17

by a reference to the English decision in Lochgelly Iron & Coal
Co. Ltd. v. M'Mullan [Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. Ltd. v. M'Mullan,
1934 AC 1 (HL)] . A reading of this case would suggest that
where a duty of care exists under the common law, and this
duty is additionally supported and clarified by the statutory
provisions, a breach of the statutory duty would be proof
enough of negligence. It would not be open to the defendant in
such a case to argue that the harm was not foreseeable, since
"the very object of the legislation is to put that particular
precaution beyond controversy".

105. The import and significance of M'Mullan case
[Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. Ltd. v. M'Mullan, 1934 AC 1 (HL)] is
explained in Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (20th Edn.) as follows:

"In Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. Ltd. v. M'Mullan
[Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. Ltd. v. M'Mullan, 1934 AC 1 (HL)]
, the House of Lords came close to equating an action for
breach of statutory duty with an action in negligence. Lord
Atkin said that all that was necessary to show

'is a duty to take care to avoid injuring; and if the
particular care to be taken is prescribed by statute, and the
duty to the injured person to take the care is likewise
imposed by statute, and the breach is proved, all the
essentials of negligence are present'. (AC p. 9)

Negligence did not depend on the Court agreeing
with the legislature that the precaution ought to have been
taken, because the "very object of the legislation is to put
that particular precaution beyond controversy". On this
approach breach of a statutory duty constitutes negligence
per se, but it applies only to legislation which is designed to
prevent a particular mischief in respect of which the
defendant is already under a duty in common law. Failure to
meet the prescribed statutory standard is then treated as
unreasonable conduct amounting to negligence, because a
reasonable man would not ignore precautions required by
statute, and the defendant cannot claim that the harm was
unforeseeable because the legislature has already
anticipated it. The statutory standard "crystallises" the
question of what constitutes carelessness. On the other
hand, where legislation does not deal with circumstances in
which there is an existing common law duty, then, unless
expressly stated, breach of the statute would not give rise
18

to an action, because the damages may greatly exceed the
penalty considered appropriate by the legislature."

.... .... ....

115.2. The second and equally important dimension
relevant to the duty of an occupier of a cinema theatre concerns
the statutory provisions that regulate such duties and make
certain safety measures essential. As previously discussed, the
effect of such statutory provisions where the nature of care is
specifically outlined is that an occupier cannot argue in defence
that any danger arising out of violation or non-adherence to the
provisions of the statute was not reasonably foreseeable by him.
The decision of the House of Lords in Lochgelly case [Lochgelly
Iron & Coal Co. Ltd. v. M'Mullan, 1934 AC 1 (HL)] succinctly
explains "the effect of an additional statutory burden cast upon
an occupier where a common law duty already exists".

9. It also becomes germane to notice the fact that there are

several complaints, before the fateful day, to rectify the defect in

the transformer. The Police, on investigation, have appended those

complaints to the charge sheet. These are undisputed facts. Prima

facie negligence is writ large qua the petitioner, or other accused in

the case at hand. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with

the on-going trial against the petitioner.

10. Heavy reliance is placed by the petitioner on the fact that

the wife of the deceased has been paid `20,00,000/- compensation

on the death of the husband and the daughter and, therefore, in
19

the light of compensation being paid, the petitioner should be

absolved of the crime. The said submission is preposterous to say