The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.464 of 2023 Application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Preetam Kumar Mohapatra ...… Petitioner --------------- -Versus- State of Odisha and another ...…. Opp.Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. A. Tripathy & A.K. Behera Advocates. For Opp. Parties : Mr. N. Pratap, [Additional Standing Counsel] _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 18th April, 2023 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner, in the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeks to challenge the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him in G.R. Case No. 1029 of 2019 in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Kanas district Puri. 2. The prosecution case is as follows:- Page 1 of 9 The cyclone “Fani” ravaged parts of State of Orissa in May-June, 2019 causing wide spread damage to property including the electricity installations and severance of electricity wires from the poles. Such damage also occurred in the village of Krushna Nagar under Kanas police station whereby the wires were severed from their poles and consequentially there was disruption of electricity supply. Such supply was restored by affixing new wires to the poles and the same was the responsibility of Preetam Kumar Mohapatra, the Junior Engineer of Electricity Department (accused petitioner) and his staff. Two to three days thereafter, when the mother of the informant, namely, Nishamani Sethi had gone to backyard to pluck flowers, she came in contact with live electric wire that had been severed from its pole and was electrocuted. When the informant’s father wanted to save her, he was also electrocuted. It is alleged that because of sheer negligence and carelessness of the petitioner and his staff, the old wire was connected to electricity and had not been removed even though the new wires had been attached to the poles. Page 2 of 9 3. On a written report being submitted by the informant before Kanas police station, it led to registration of P.S. Case No. 53 of 2019 under Sections 304-A/34 of IPC followed by investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted only against the accused- petitioner under Section 304-A/34 of I.P.C.
Legal Reasoning
4. Heard Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nikhil Pratap, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 5. Mr. Tripathy argues that a criminal proceeding cannot be initiated on vague and non-specific allegations. Referring to the FIR, Mr. Tripathy would contend that there is nothing therein to show that the petitioner had committed the so called act of negligence rather he has been roped in only because he was the Junior Engineer at the relevant time. Moreover, the FIR also mentions the staff of the Electricity Department, but none of them was charge sheeted. Unless the prosecution comes up with a definite case that the petitioner was solely responsible for allowing Page 3 of 9 a live electricity electric wire to lie on the ground, the proceeding against him would not be justified. 6. Per contra, Mr. Pratap submits that undisputedly the petitioner being the Junior Engineer was responsible for repair of the electricity poles and wires damaged due to the cyclone. It is evident that while restoring electricity supply care was not taken to remove the old wire which being connected to power supply led to the accident. Therefore, according to Mr. Pratap, the petitioner is criminally liable for negligence. 7. Before proceeding to determine the merits of the rival contentions noted above, this Court would like to keep in perspective certain principles of law. Firstly, it is well settled that a criminal proceeding is a serious matter and cannot be initiated without adequate reason. Reference may be had in this regard to the ratio decided in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. & another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others, reported in 1998 5 SCC 749 Secondly, a criminal liability can be fastened on specific allegations, but not on vague or non-specific allegations. Page 4 of 9 Moreover, the concept of vicarious liability is ordinarily unknown in criminal jurisprudence. Keeping the above principles in background, the facts of the case may now be examined. Reading of FIR reveals that the LT line running in the backyard of the informant’s house was connected to power supply two to three days before the incident. Such work was supposedly done by the Electricity Department under the supervision of the Junior Engineer, Preetam Kumar Mohapatra (petitioner). It is alleged that because of carelessness and negligence, despite affixing of new wire to the poles, the old wire was not disconnected rather it remained connected with electricity. Here, the first question that arises is, was it the sole responsibility of the petitioner to affix and remove the wires. Obviously, he being the Junior Engineer, it would be reasonable to suppose that he was in overall charge of the work but then it would be too much to expect that he had himself performed the work of connection of new wires and removal of the old ones. Moreover, as per the FIR story, the work Page 5 of 9 was done two to three days before the incident and yet no one noticed the live old wire connected to the pole lying on the ground. The prosecution is silent as to if the deceased persons had visited their backward to pluck flowers in the morning in the interregnum or that they had done so for the first time on the date of occurrence 8. This Court has perused the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. including that of the informant-Nibas Kumar Sethi. None of them has stated anything, apart from repeating parrot-like the FIR version, that would even remotely show that the petitioner was personally responsible for the alleged mishap. Moreover, it is not known as to how the old wire was charged as has been argued by Mr. Tripathy. It is also possible that the old wire became charged because of some error in connection or its contact with the new wire. In any case, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. Going along with the prosecution story as laid it is necessary to find out whether the petitioner can be booked for negligence for supposedly not taking care to remove the old Page 6 of 9 live wire from the pole. It would be necessary to examine the provision under Section 304-A of IPC, which is quoted hereinbelow. “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.” 9. Bare reading of the provision shows that the following ingredients would be necessary to constitute the offence, namely, (i) There must be death of a person; (ii) The accused must have caused such death; and (iii) Such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide. 10. It is the well settled principle of law that in order to attract the section death must be a direct result of rash or negligent act of the accused and the act must be the sufficient cause without the intervention of any other act of negligence. It must be causa causans, it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. Reference in this regard may be had to the decision of the Apex Court in the Page 7 of 9 case of Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwalla vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1616. In the case of Anandasingh Neggi vs. State , reported in AIR 1969 Ori 49, this Court held that there must be a direct nexus between the death of the person and the rash and negligent act. Remote nexus is not enough. 11. Viewed in light of the principles of law referred hereinbefore, this Court finds absolutely no evidence to show that the act of leaving a live wire connected to the pole had been committed by the accused. In the absence of such fundamental fact, there would not be any proximal nexus between the so called negligence of the petitioner and the death of the deceased. 12. As it appears, the petitioner has been roped in only because he was the Junior Engineer and in charge of the repair work. Obviously, the Junior Engineer cannot be expected to have done all the manual works by himself. Thus, it is more on suspicion than any positive evidence that the prosecution appears to have based its case. Obviously, mere suspicion without any material, prima Page 8 of 9 facie showing the complicity of the petitioner is not sufficient to sustain the criminal proceeding against him. 13. Thus, on the conspectus of the analysis of law and facts and the rival contentions raised, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution case lacks the necessary ingredients to proceed against the petitioner. As such, continuance of the proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 14. For the foregoing reason therefore, the CRLMC is allowed. The criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1029 of 2019 pending before learned J.M.F.C., Kanas corresponding to Kanas P.S. Case No. 53 of 2019 is hereby quashed. ……..…………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 18th April, 2023/ B.C. Tudu, Sr. Steno Page 9 of 9