ultimately dismissed the suit, it acknowledged in paragraph No.12 of its % Judgment that "the undipusted fact remained that electricshockcauseddeath ofNarayana Rao (deceased)”. 16. The Defendants examined DW.1 (K. Devid Raju), who testified that while their constable was erecting an electrical pole,thedeceased,reportedly insane, ran towards that constable and pushed him. It caused theironpoleto come into contact with electrical lines, resulting in anelectricalshock.The Defendants specifically claim that they did not engagethedeceased as a coolie. However, DW.1 admitted to lacking personal knowledge of the incident. Notably, the constable who was present atthetimeoftheincident was not called to testify on behalf of the Defendants.Thereappearstobeno adequate explanation for this omission, especiallysincetheconstablewas of the incident. DW.1 also did not indicate that other present at the time witnesses were present during the incident. Given that the incidentoccurredin constable and the deceased, the Defendants should the presence of both the have called the constable to testify in support oftheircase. 17. The trial Court noted that the electrical lines of theelectricitydepartment are visibly located in the open area surrounding theDefendant'spolicestation, the fact another constable (named Papaiah) suffered an It pointed out that electric shock, as indicated in the Newspaper publication(Ex.A.3),castsdoubt on the Plaintiffs’ claim that the deceased was engagedasacooliebythe Police. However, this reasoning lacks legal validity.Themereoccurrenceof constable does not make it improbable for another individual to injuries to one electric shock. Furthermore, the Defendants were sustain injuries from an obligated to explain the presence of the deceased intheopenareaofthe Police station premises.
