Karnataka High Court

Hassan Sab S/O Mahammad Sab vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2025

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642
                                                       CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2017




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                        DHARWAD BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                                BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

                          CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100257 OF 2017
                                     (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

                     BETWEEN:

                     1.    HASSAN SAB S/O. MAHAMMAD SAB MULLANNAVAR
                           AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

                     2.    MOHAMMAD ALI S/O. HASSAN SAB MULLANNAVAR,
                           AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICUALTURE,

                     3.    HAJARE SAB S/O. HASSAN SAB MULLANNAVAR,
                           AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICUALTURE,
                           ALL ARE R/O. BACHANAKI, TQ. MUNDGOD,
                           DIST. KARWAR-581349.
                                                                    ...PETITIONERS
                     (BY SRI GOVIND GOUDA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
                         SRI S.S. PATIL AND SRI SANJAY CHANNAL, ADVOCATES)
                     AND:
        Digitally
        signed by

VN
        VN
        BADIGER
                     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BADIGER Date:
        2025.03.19
                     REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
        10:34:18
        +0530        HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA,
                     AT DHARWAD BENCH.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENT
                     (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

                           THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
                     SECTION 397(1) READ WITH SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET
                     ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE SENTENCE AND CONVICTION PASSED BY
                     THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC MUNDGOD IN C.C. NO. 271 OF
                     2007 BY ITS ORDER DATED 29.12.2009 AND THE SAME WAS
                     CONFIRMED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
                     JUDGE U.K.KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11
                     OF 2010 BY ITS ORDER DATED 23.08.2017 AND ACQUIT THEM FOR
                     THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304(a) READ WITH 34
                     OF IPC.
                                         -2-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642
                                              CRL.RP No. 100257 of 2017




    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


                                 ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri.Govind Gouda Patil, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of Sri.S.S.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners

and Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddyavar, learned High Court

Government Pleader for the State/respondent.

2. Accused persons have suffered an order of

conviction in CC No.271/2007 for the offence punishable under

Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay

fine in a sum of Rs.2,000/- which was confirmed in

Crl.A.No.11/2010 are the revision petitioners.

3. During the pendency of the revision petition,

accused No.1 died and therefore, revision petition against

accused No.1 stood abated.

4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the revision petition are as under:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642

4.1. Mundgod Police Station filed the charge sheet for the

offence punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of

IPC. The charge sheet would reveal that accused No.1 was the

owner of the land in Sy.No.32 of Bachanaki village and accused

Nos.2 and 3 are his sons. Accused persons have grown

sugarcane in their land. In order to protect the sugarcane

crops from the animals which would grace them, they had

fenced the land with barbed wire. However, they had also

unauthorizedly connected the electric wire to the said fence.

4.2. On 19.05.2007 at about 7 p.m., accused No.2

connected the electricity line to the fence unauthorizedly. At

about 7.45 p.m. on the same day, complainant as well as

others went to fetch drinking water. At that juncture, they

came in contact with the electric live wire attached to fencing

and Sudheer Yegappanavar was electrocuted and died on the

spot. Accused No.3 having seen the incident, ran away from

the spot without even disconnecting the electricity. Incident

was reported to the police and case came to be registered.

5. After thorough investigation, police filed the charge

sheet.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642

6. Presence of the accused persons were secured by

the learned Trial Judge after taking cognizance, plea was

recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was

held.

7. Prosecution examined nine witnesses as P.W.1 to 9

and placed on record 10 documentary evidence which were

exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 10.

8. Wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.5 and

Erappa, Mahaveera, Shantappa, Yellappa and other persons

were also examined as witnesses. Dr.Lakshmidevi who

conducted post mortem examination, issued post mortem

report is examined as P.W.7.

9. Detailed cross-examination of prosecution witnesses

did not yield any positive materials.

10. Thereafter, accused statement as is contemplated

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused

persons have denied the incriminatory materials but failed to

place their version about the incident.

11. Learned Trial Judge subsequent there to heard the

arguments of both the sides and convicted the accused persons

and sentenced them to undergo six months imprisonment.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642

12. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an

appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.10/2010.

13. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in

detail and by considered judgment dated 23.08.2017,

dismissed the appeal filed by the accused persons.

14. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused

persons are before this Court.

15. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition

vehemently contended that incident is an accident and there is

no material on record to establish that it is the accused persons

who are responsible for the electrocution of Sudheer

Yegappanavar.

16. He would further contend that just because the land

belongs to accused persons, there cannot be an inference that

accused are the persons who are responsible for the

electrocution of Sudheer Yegappanavar and sought for allowing

the revision petition.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642

17. Alternatively, he would contend that in the event,

this Court, upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the

fact that owner of the land is no more, accused Nos.2 and 3 are

ordered to be set at free by enhancing the fine amount

reasonably.

18. Per contra, Sri.Praveen Devareddyavar, learned

High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned

judgments.

19. He would further contend that admittedly there was

an erection of barbed wire fencing. It is specifically noted that

on 19.05.2007 at about 7.00 p.m., accused No.2 directly

connected the electricity line to the fence. On the same day at

about 7.45 p.m. Sudheer Yegappanavar and others went in the

same road for fetching the water and among them, Sudheer

Yegappanavar got electrocuted and died on the spot.

20. Therefore, hardly there is any scope for reversing

the order of conviction and showing any mercy for the accused

persons and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.

21. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642

22. On such perusal of the material on record, following

points would arise for consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution proves that judgments are suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus, calls for interference?

2. Whether the sentence is excessive?

3. What order?

REG. POINT Nos.1 and 2:

23. In the case on hand, death of Sudheer

Yegappanavar by electrocution is not in dispute. Same is

established by placing necessary oral and documentary

evidence on record including the post-mortem report.

24. Further, land belongs to accused No.1 is not in

dispute. Likewise, wire erection of barbed wire fencing to the

land is also not in dispute. Admittedly, the electricity line from

the electric pole has been drawn and it has been connected to

the fencing with the help of binding wire. Same is seized by

the police apart from seizing the copper pot and plastic pot

from the spot. Service wire which has been used as a hook to

draw the electricity line from the pole to be connected to the

fencing is also seized by the police and is marked as MO.4.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642

25. Panch witnesses have supported the case of

prosecution. So also the complainant and wife of the deceased.

Dcotor who issued the post-mortem report has specifically

opined that Sudheer Yegappanavar died on account of

electrocution.

26. Admittedly, none of these witnesses had any

previous enmity or animosity to falsely implicate the accused

persons in the case.

27. Taking note of these aspects of the matter,

conviction order recorded by the learned Judge in the First

Appellate needs no interference, that too, in the limited

revisional jurisdiction.

28. In the case on hand, learned Trial Judge has

granted six months imprisonment for the offence punishable

under Section 304A of IPC which is a minimum punishment in a

matter of this nature. As such, sentence needs no interference

by this Court. More so, when there is no mitigating

circumstances pleaded and proved.

29. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in

negative.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4642

REG.POINT No.3:

30. In view of the foregoing discussions on point Nos.1

and 2 as above, following:

ORDER

i. Revision petition is meritless and hereby

dismissed.

ii. Time is granted for the revision petitioners to

surrender before the Trial Court for serving

remaining part of the sentence till 15.04.2025.

Office is directed to return the trial Court records with

copy of this order forthwith.