Case Brief
Ram Kumar Lahariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.- Special Leave Petition (crl.) 2435 of 2000
Deciding Authority
Supreme Court
Name of the Judges
M.B. Shah, S.N. Variava JJ.
Date of Judgment
8th January 2001
Facts of the Case
Leave granted. This Appeal was against an Order dated 29th March, 2000 by which an order framing charges under Sections 302 and 304 of I.P.C. had been quashed. By the impugned order the prosecution was directed to proceed only under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
2nd Respondent possessed a field by the side of Shankar River. 2nd Respondent used to take water from the river to his field for irrigation purposes. 2nd Respondent did not have electric connection. It was claimed by the prosecution that he was taking illegal electric connection.
On 2nd May, 1999 a boy, named Santosh, who was aged about 11 years, died due to electric shock by coming in contact with the live wire through which 2nd Respondent was illegally taking electric connection. Some persons gave statements that the boy was swimming in the river and the wire accidentally broke and fell in the water resulting in the boy being electrocuted.
Judgment
By the impugned Order prosecution was directed to proceed with only for offences under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act.
However, two eye witnesses, by name Haribai aged about 12 and Sandhya bai aged about 7, had given statement to the police that 2nd Respondent had called the deceased Santosh to him and had given electric shock to the deceased on his chest and other parts of the body with the help of other accused. The story given by the two eye witnesses is that thereafter 2nd Respondent and other Accused had thrown the body into the river along with the live wire.
It was observed by the Hon’ble Court that 5 burn injuries had been found on the dead body. The Trial Court after considering the facts and material framed charges under Sections 302 and 304 of I.P.C and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act.
The High Court, in Criminal Revision, by the impugned Order proceeded to disbelieve the evidence of the eye witnesses. The High Court had noted that, at this stage, the evidence was not to be weighed by the Court. But the High Court held that the Court could still assess the improbability or absurdity of the statement of the eye witnesses. The High Court held that the statements of the two witnesses Sandhya bai and Hari bai were so absurd and improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused for offences under Section 302 or Section 304 of the I.P.C.
In the Hon’ble Court’s view, the High Court had committed a patent error. As noted by the High Court itself, at this stage, it was not open for the Court to weigh or assess the evidence. It was not possible for the Court, at this stage, to come to a conclusion that this evidence was absurd or inherently improbable. Prima facie atleast the 5 burn injuries support the case that the boy was not just electrocuted by a live wire falling in the river in which he was swimming. They prima facie suggest direct contact with the live wire.
Decision
In this matter the Supreme Court was of the view that the Order of the High Court cannot be sustained and it was set aside. The Appeal was accordingly allowed. The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial on the basis of
charges framed by it.
Shubham Shandilya, 4th Year, B.B.A. LL.B., Symbiosis Law School, Pune
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS