Seetaram vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 9369 MP

                                                    1
                          IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                           ON THE 22 nd OF JUNE, 2023
                                        CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 69 of 2009

                          BETWEEN:-
                          KAMMOD SINGH BAGHEL S/O S/O RAMDANI BAGHEL ,
                          AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.-3, DABOH,
                          ASSISTANT  LINEMAN, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT
                          CENTRE,   DABOH,   DISTRICT   BHIND (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                          (SHRI VIJAY KUMAR JHA- LEARNED COUNSEL APPOINTED THROUGH
                          LEGAL AID SERVICES AUTHORITY FOR APPELLANT )

                          AND
                          STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION DABOH,
                          DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                          (SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT-
                          STATE)

                                        CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 77 of 2009

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SEETARAM S/O S/O UDAYBHAN BADHAI , AGED ABOUT
                          50   YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT LINE MAN,
                          RESIDENT OF WARD NO-15, DABOH, PRESENT
                          ASSISTANT LINE MAN, VIDYUT VITARAN KENDRA
                          DABOH, DISTRICT .BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                          (SHRI VIJAY KUMAR JHA- LEARNED COUNSEL APPOINTED THROUGH
                          LEGAL AID SERVICES AUTHORITY FOR THE APPELLANT )

                          AND
                          STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION DABOH,
                          DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 6/23/2023
3:18:13 PM
                                                               2
                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                          (SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT-
                          STATE )

                                   Both appeals coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                          following common :
                                                             JUDGMENT

Since facts of both criminal appeals are same, therefore, the same are heard simultaneously. CRA No.77 of 2009 filed by appellant Seetaram shall also govern disposal by this common judgment.

Aforesaid Criminal Appeals under Section 374 of CrPC have been preferred by both appellants Kammod Singh Baghel and Seetaram challenging

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6th January, 2009 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Lahar, District Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2008, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 304 Part I of IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

In brief, the prosecution case is that on 06-11-2007 at around 07:30 in the morning, Shri Durgaprasad, Assistant Line Man, due to defect of 11 KV DO on the transformer located at Chowk Mohalla took an oral permission himself from appellant Kammod Singh, Assistant Lineman working at Sub-Station Daboh and went to work at Chowk Mohalla Transformer along with Amar Singh, Line Helper who was standing below at the time of electric maintenance. Appellant Kammod Singh handed over his duty to appellant Seetaram, Assistant Lineman and went away. Thereafter, appellant Seetaram, Assistant Lineman was not informed about permit due to which he without having full knowledge regarding the permit, 11KV DO feeder/transformer was commissioned. At that time, Durgaprasad, Assistant Lineman was working on the transformer. As soon as Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/23/2023 3:18:13 PM

11 KV line was switched on, Durgaprasad fell down from transformer and due to electrocution, his head and waist were burnt and he died. His postmortem was conducted and as per postmortem report, the death of deceased was due to cardio-respiratory failure as a result of burn and its complication and electrocution. On the basis of application given by Junior Engineer, MPMKVV, Daboh, Crime No.99 of 2009 was registered at Police Station Daboh for offence under Section 308 of IPC. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed under Section 304 of IPC in the Court of JMFC from where the case was committed to Sessions Court for its trial.

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 11 witnesses whereas the appellants in their defence examined the then Junior Engineer Purushottam Sen as DW1.On appreciation of evidence the trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC and sentenced them accordingly, as mentioned above. Hence, these appeals.

It is contended by Shri Jha learned counsel for the appellants, that the trial Court has committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing present appellants for alleged offence. It is further contended that RS Sharma (PW9), the then Assistant Engineer in his Court statement has specifically deposed that deceased Durgaprasad had not taken any permit in writing and by taking an oral permit, he had gone to work on electric line. It is further contended that Line

Helper Amar Singh (PW1) who, at the time of incident was standing below the transformer, has denied prosecution allegation. It is further contended that a person who goes to repair the transformer from electric line, does so after making an entry of permit in the register and without any permit, no work can be done on KV line. It is further contended that the learned trial Court without

Signature Not Verified taking into consideration of Junior Engineer- Purushottam Sen (DW1), has Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/23/2023 3:18:13 PM

wrongly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. The prosecution has utterly failed to establish the appellants guilty of aforesaid offence and therefore, they deserve to be acquitted.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State opposed the contentions of learned Counsel for the appellants by supporting the impugned judgment and hence, prayed for dismissal of these appeals.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not disputed that deceased Durgaprasad was not died due to electrocution.

I have to see as to whether the appellants are responsible or liable for commission of alleged or not? In this regard, it is apposite to go through evidence of main prosecution witness i.e. R.S. Sharma (PW9), the then Assistant Engineer, who on the date of incident i.e. 06-11-2007 was posted at Vidyut Vitaran Kendra, sub-station Daboh.

This witness in para 1 of his examination-in-chief deposed that deceased Durgaprasad was Assistant Lineman along with appellants. Deceased was doing for maintenance of Transformer DO at Chowk Mohalla Daboh. Appellants were also working at sub-station. This witness further deposed that a person who goes to maintain the line, has to keep entering in register at same sub-station and informing the concerned employee. Sometimes, a permit is valid, sometimes, it is an oral but permit remains with employee who goes to work and he has to keep permit with him at the time of doing maintenance work of line. When he get stuck after working, only then the line is done. This witness further deposed that at the time of incident, deceased had taken an oral permit and it is true that while deceased was working on the transformer, the line got disconnected and Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/23/2023 3:18:13 PM

he got electrocuted due to which he died. From appellant Kammod appellant Seetaram took duty and Seetaram had commissioned the electric line. The report regarding the incident was given by him vide Ex.P11.

During cross- examination, this witness in para 2 has admitted that he was not present at sub-Station. On 05-11-2007 the duty of appellant Kammod was from 10:00 in the night till 06:00 in the morning of 06-11-2007. This witness further in para 3 of his cross-examination deposed that regarding defect of transformer an information was received to staff at sub-station but he did not get any information. On the date of incident, the duty of deceased was from 06:00 am to 02:00 pm. He cannot say as to why deceased Durgaprasad had taken an oral permit. He reached spot after two hours of the incident. This witness in para 6 of his cross-examination deposed that as per rules, oral permit could not be given but in exceptional cases, an oral permit can be given. Only one of permits register remains in Electric Department not both. While entering one of these, one cannot do outside work. This witness denied that in the register, the permit was not entered.

As per evidence of this witness specifically from his examination-in-chief and cross-examination, it is clear that for seeking a permission, a register is used to be kept at the sub-station and the permit should be in writing but in exceptional cases, there may be an oral permit. The prosecution has not produced any permit register so that it can be proved that at the time of incident a permit was issued on which the deceased was working for maintenance of transformer. Besides this, as per evidence of this witness, when a lineman is used to work on the line, he has to keep a permit with him and after doing work he has to come back to substation along with permit and thereafter, the permit has to be cancelled but in the present case, there was no permit seized from Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/23/2023 3:18:13 PM

possession of the deceased. Besides this, as per evidence of this witness, appellant Seetaram was not having full knowledge regarding the permission given to the deceased. So far as appellant Kammod is concerned, there is no reliable evidence placed before the trial Court by prosecution in order to establish that appellant Kammod had given any permission to deceased to work on electric line. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the appellants guilty of offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC. The learned trial Court has also committed an error in passing the impugned judgment.

As a result, both criminal appeals succeed and they are allowed. The judgment dated 6th January, 2009 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Lahar, District Bhind in Sessions Trial No.39 of 2008 is hereby set aside. Appellants are acquitted of charge levelled against them. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. Fine amount, if any, deposited by appellants be refunded to them.

A copy of this judgment along with record be sent to trial Court

concerned for information and a copy of this judgment be also kept in connected Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2009 filed by appellant Seetaram.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/23/2023 3:18:13 PM