Partly allowed

State of Karnataka v. Laxmibai Basappa Honawad

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2023CRL.A/100071/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the appellant State's appeal partly, modifying the trial court's sentence. Convictions were upheld, and simple imprisonment of six months was imposed for negligence causing death and unauthorized electricity tapping.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction is maintained; accused sentenced to six months simple imprisonment concurrently for IPC Section 304(a) and Electricity Act Section 135(1)(a); fine maintained.

State of Karnataka Vs Laxmibai Basappa Honawad — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100071 OF 2015

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, ATHANI POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶10

ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶11

…APPELLANT.

¶12

(BY SRI. V. M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)

¶13

AND:

¶14

BHARATHI H M

¶15

Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA-DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2023.07.27 15:20:59 +0530

¶16

SMT. LAXMIBAI BASAPPA HONAWAD AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KESARALA ROAD, ATHANI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶17

SHRI. MAHADEV DUNDAPPA DEVANAL, AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O: KESARALA ROAD, ATHANI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶18

…ACCUSED

¶19

(BY SRI. SURAJ S. MUTNAL, ADV. FOR R1 & R2).

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 377 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.11.2014 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶22

JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN SPL.C.NO.60/2012, SO FAR IT RELATES TO IMPOSITION OF LESSER SENTENCE IS CONCERNED AND IMPOSE ADEQUATE SENTENCE AS PROVIDED UNDER LAW.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, , THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The appellant/ State has filed this appeal against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 05.11.2014, passed in Special Case No.60/2012, by First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304(a) of IPC and Section 135(1)(a) of Electricity Act and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- only.

¶26

The facts of the prosecution case are as under:

¶27

Accused Nos.1 and 2 were residing in the house situated in the land, abutting to Kesarala Road, Athani and the house belonging to accused No.1, they have unauthorizedly taken electricity connection to their house using an unquoted wire by putting a hook to the electricity LT line passing through their land. Thereby, negligently

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶29

allowed the wire to be on the ground so as to come in contact with people. On 28.06.2011 at 6:00 P.M, one Shreya, aged about 2 years and Basavaraj aged about 3 years, while they were playing games near the house of accused No.1, they came into contact with unquoted live wire drawn from the hook put to the LT line, suffered electric shock and died on the spot. Hence, accused No.1 and 2 caused death of two children by their negligent act. Therefore, the father of Shreya lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1.

¶30

On the basis of the complaint, the Athani police have registered the case in Crime No.21/2011 under Section 304(A) of IPC. The investigation officer visited the spot, conducted mahazers, recorded the statement of witness and collected documents and filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act.

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶32

After filing of the charge sheet, the learned

¶33

Special Judge took cognizance of the offence against accused for the aforesaid offences , framed charges against accuse Nos.1 and 2 and read over to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶34

In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.13 and documents got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and material object as M.O.1.

¶35

After completion of the evidence, the Special

¶36

Court examined accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.PC by explaining incriminating circumstances appearing

¶37

in the prosecution case and they denied the same. The case of accused is of total denial.

¶38

The trial court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record framed the following points for consideration;

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶40

1. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 28.06.2011 evening at about 6-00 O’ clock at Kesarala Thota the accused had negligently drawn unauthorisedly uncoated wire, by hooking LT wire, to their house by allowing in to touch the ground, thereby caused death of Shreya and Basavaraj and committed the offence punishable U/s 304-A of IPC?

¶41

2. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused have dishonestly made use of LT line wire by hooking and unauthorisedly and taken electric connection to their house and consumed electricity thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 135(1) (a) of the Electricity Act?

¶42

3. What order?

¶43

Based on the above evidence, the trial Court recorded a finding that, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that, on 28.06.2011 at 6.00 P.M, in land abutting to Kesarala Road, accused Nos.1 and 2 negligently drawn, the electric wire unauthorizedly which was unquoted wire by hooking LT wire to their house and

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶45

allowed to touch the ground and thereby caused the death of Shreya and Basavaraj. Further, they have committed theft of electricity by dishonesty using the LT line wire by hooking and unauthorizedly taken the electricity connection to their house. Hence, the trial Court answered Points No.1 and 2 in the affirmative and convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- only and the trial Court also sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

¶46

Aggrieved by the inadequate sentence passed by the trial Court, the state has preferred this appeal.

¶47

Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶48

Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has taken contention that, the judgment and order of sentence

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶50

passed by the trial Court so far it relates to imposing of lesser sentence is illegal, baseless and is against the principle of law and facts. The trial Court has accepted the evidence of PW.1, 5, 6, 8 and 9, and has rightly convicted accused Nos.1 and 2, but, failed to impose proper and adequate sentence on accused Nos.1 and 2. It is further contended that, under Section 304(A) of IPC, the sentence prescribed is, it may extend to two years, or with fine or with both and for Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003, the punishment prescribed is, it may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both. Therefore, it is contended that, the trial Court ought to have sentenced the accused for minimum six months for the offences punishable under section 304(A) of IPC and Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act. It is further contended that, the trial Court has not assigned any proper reasons for imposing lesser sentence and the reasons assigned are not tenable in the eye of law. Therefore, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor prays to impose adequate sentence to the accused.

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶52

The learned counsel for accused vehemently argued and submitted that accused No. 1 and 2 have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. On the basis of the uncorroborated evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused. However, the trial Court has rightly imposed a fine instead of convicting the accused persons and the trial Court has rightly not imposed any imprisonment on accused Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel further contended that accused Nos.2 is the father of deceased Basavaraj and the complainant is the father of deceased Shreya. Therefore, the complainant is the relative of accused Nos.1 and 2. The act of accused Nos.1 and 2 was not intentional one and they are illiterate persons. Hence, learned counsel for the accused justified the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court. On all these grounds, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶53

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶54

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶55

parties, the points that would arise for my consideration in the present appeal are as under:

¶56

Whether the State has made out any case to

¶57

interfere with the impugned judgment and order of sentence, in so far as inadequate sentence passed by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act,

¶58

2003 ?

¶59

What order?

¶60

The court has given anxious consideration to

¶61

the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material including the original records carefully. The substance of the prosecution case is that, on 28.06.2011 at 6:00 P.M, Kesarala Road, Athani, the accused unauthorisedly put unquoted wire by hooking LT line wire to their house by allowing it to touch

¶62

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶63

the ground. Therefore, by causing the death of Shreya and Basavaraj and they dishonestly made use of LT wire by hooking and unauthorisedly taken electricity connection to their house and thereby consumed electricity.

¶64

In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution examined PW.1 Raosaheb Nagappa Jeergyale, in his evidence he has stated that, accused persons have taken an unauthorised electricity by using unquoted M.O.1 wire to their house and it was left touching the ground and therefore, Shreya and Basavaraj died on the spot, due to electrocution. Hence, he lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1. Therefore, the police visited the spot and conducted inquest Punchnama as per Ex.P.2, but, in the cross-examination, nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to discard his testimony.

¶65

PW.2 – Hanumant Shankar Mali, is the witness to inquest panchanama (Ex.P5), in his evidence he has stated that, police have conducted inquest Punchnama on

¶66

11 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶67

the dead body of deceased Basavaraj, the son of accused

¶68

No.2, but he do not know, how Basavaraj died.

¶69

PW.3 – Mallappa Kallappa Chowkande is

¶70

witness of inquest Punchnama, in his evidence, he has stated that, on 29.06.2011, police conducted inquest Punchnama on the dead body of Basavaraj. In the crossexamination, he has admitted that, he do not know, how Basavaraj died and he do not know the contents of Ex.P.3 inquest Panchanama.

¶71

PW.4 – Suresh Nagappa Narode, the witness to

¶72

the spot mahazar (Ex.P.4). In his evidence, he has stated that, on 29.06.2003 at 6:30 p.m., the police came to the

¶73

house of accused No.1 and they conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.4 and seized M.O.1 unquoted wire. They also conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of deceased Shreya as per Ex.P.5. In the crossexamination PW.4 admitted that, he is the relative of complainant and the rest of the suggestions were denied by him.

¶74

12 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶75

PW.5 – Prabhu Sadashiv Honawad, a father of the complainant, he reiterates the evidence of PW.1 and in the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.5 to discard his testimony.

¶76

PW.6 – Rajashree Raosaheb Jeergyale, the wife of PW.1. She also reiterated the evidence of PW.1 and PW.5.

¶77

PW.7 – Siddaraya Maruti Kadam, witness to spot mahazar, in his evidence, he has stated that, about two years ago, he had been to the house of accused, where two children were died, but, he did not know how the children were died and he did not shown the spot to the police and police have not conducted any mahazers in his presence. Hence, he turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the cross-examination, nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW.7.

¶78

PW.8 – Suresh Shivapad Diwanmala, in his evidence, he has stated that, as per the request of the

¶79

13 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶80

complainant, he had been to the spot and saw the dead body of deceased Shreya and Basavaraj, who were died due to electrocution. Therefore, the police took the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination. Therefore, he and the complainant had been to the police station, as per the instruction of complainant.

¶81

PW.9 – Nagaraj Puttanarasappa, the Electrical Inspector, HESCOM, in his evidence, he has stated that, on 28.06.2011 at about 5:30 p.m., he received information that, in the land of accused No.1, two childrens were died due to electrocution. Hence, he visited the spot, inspected the land, where the dead bodies were lying and he came to know that, accused Nos.1 and 2 were took electricity connection unauthorizedly with LT line, by using winding wire with PUC insulator aluminum wire to base conductor by hook. Hence, he submitted his report as per Ex.P.7.

¶82

PW.10 – Lalsingh Gulabsingh Rajaput, ASI, in his evidence, he has stated that, on 29.06.2011 at about

¶83

14 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶84

2:00 p.m., as per instruction of PSI, he visited the spot and conducted inquest Punchnama, as per Ex.P.3 on the dead body of Basavaraj.

¶85

PW. 11 – Dr. Revappa Chintamani Waghmore,

¶86

in his evidence, he has stated that, on 29.06.2011 at about 6:00 a.m., he examined the dead body of Shreya.

¶87

Hence, he conducted the postmortem examination and found the following injuries;

¶88

A corrugated white contusion or dorsal aspect of left hand 3cm X 1.5cm margins are contused and raised, floor of the wound is dry and parchment like.

¶89

Another contusion of same type on first interphalangeal space 4cm X 2cm.

¶90

According to PW11, cause of death of Shreya is asphyxia due to electric shock.

¶91

Accordingly, he has issued PM report as per Ex. P.8.

¶92

On the same day at 6.15 a.m, a body of Basavaraj Mahadev Devanal was brought by Athani police for P.M examination. Examination was conducted between 8.00

¶93

15 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶94

a.m. to 9.00 a.m on 29/6/2011. And on examination, he found following injuries.

¶95

Burnt mark on dorsum of wrist 4cm X 2cm.

¶96

Burnt mark on chin 2cm X 1cm.

¶97

Star shaped burnt mark on chest 3X2 cm floor of all injuries are crater like dry and parchment like.

¶98

The probable cause of death is asphyxia due to electric shock.

¶99

PW.12 – Ammanna Shankar Pujeri, the Section Officer, HESCOM has stated that, on 28.06.2011 at about

¶100

8:30 p.m., when he was in his office, Athani police informed him that, two children were died due to electricution. Therefore, he visited the house of accused and saw 2 children were died behind the house and he saw a copper wire behind the house, which was connected to LT line by using hook. He has further stated that, on 28.06.2011 from 6:00 a.m to 12:00 noon and from 12 noon to 6:00 p.m., there was 3 phase electricity supply on Kesarala Road, Athani. He further stated that, accused

¶101

16 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶102

persons were took electricity connection unauthorisedly by using M.O.1 wire.

¶103

PW.13 – Ravindra K. Nayakodi, PSI of Athani police station, in his evidence he has stated that, he has conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶104

Based on the above said oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 304(a) of IPC and under Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003. However, the trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2 by imposing fine of Rs.2,000/- only. Hence, the State has preferred this appeal for enhancing sentence.

¶105

The basic ingredients to attract the provision of Section 304(A) of IPC and Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003 are as under;

¶106

6. That for the sake of convenience the provisions of law is quoted below:-

¶107

17 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶108

"304-A - Causing death by negligence - whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicidal shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine or with both."

¶109

B - Section 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act 2003

¶110

reads as under: -

¶111

(1) "Whoever, dishonestly (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with over head, underground or under water lines or cables or service wires or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may be - punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both."

¶112

In order to prove the prosecution case, PW.1, the father of the deceased Shreya, his mother and relatives of PW.2 and PW.3 have categorically stated that, accused Nos.1 and 2 were unauthorisedly taken electricity connection to their house by using the wire to the LT line. Hence, diseased Shreya and Basavaraja came into the contact with the electricity and died on the spot due to the electrocution. The mahazar witness has also stated that, accused Nos.1 and 2 were unauthorisedly taken connection of electricity through LT line. Hence the incident occurred. As per the evidence of doctor, it

¶113

18 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶114

appears that, diseased Shreya and Basavaraj died due to electricution. It appears that, deceased Shreya and Basavaraj died due to negligence by the act of accused Nos.1 and 2, as they unauthorisedly took electric connection to their house by using unquoted wire through LT line.

¶115

Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor vehemently argued and submitted that taking electricity connection unauthorisedly is a criminal negligence and it is gross and pulpable negligence or failure exercise that a reasonable and proper care and precautions to guard against the public generally or individually, which having regard to all circumstances out of which the charges has raised and cross the impact duty of the accused persons who have adopted. Whereas in the instant case, accused Nos.1 and 2 were unauthorisedly taken connection of electricity to their house by using unquoted wire. Therefore, diseased Shreya and Basavaraj came into

¶116

19 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶117

contact with the wire and died on the spot due to electrocution.

¶118

In the instant case, the accused undoubtedly displayed the high negligence by allowing or causing to be used dangerous wire and they caused the death of diseased Shreya and Basavaraj. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 304(A) of IPC and Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003.

¶119

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶120

Balachandra and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1968 SC 1318 held that, the act of accused appeared to be a criminal negligence and hence they are liable for punishment under Section 304(A) of IPC.

¶121

In case of State of Punjab Vs. Sourab

¶122

Bhakshi reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182 the Hon’ble Apex Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable

¶123

20 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶124

under Section 304(A) of IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo six months of imprisonment.

¶125

Whereas, in the instant case, the learned

¶126

Special Judge without considering the legal aspect and the gravity of the offence has imposed fine only, instead of imposing the sentence of imprisonment against accused Nos.1 and 2. Admittedly, accused Nos.1 and 2 have not preferred appeal aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court. Hence, the reason assigned by

¶127

the trial Court is not at all tenable in law, it requires interference by this Court. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.

¶128

Point No.2 : In view of the forgoing discussion

¶129

on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following;

¶130

ORDER

¶131

i) Appeal filed by the State is hereby partly allowed.

¶132

21 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶133

ii) The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge in Special Case No.60/2012 dated 05.11.2014 is modified as under;

¶134

iii) Judgment of conviction against accused Nos.1 and 2 is maintained. So far as sentence is concerned, accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and in so far as the offence punishable under Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003, accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶135

iii) Both sentences shall run concurrently. So far as fine imposed by the trial Court, is also maintained.

¶136

iv) No order as to cost.

¶137

22 -

¶138

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7282 CRL.A No. 100071 of 2015

¶139

v) Registry is directed to send back the trial

¶140

Court records.

¶141

Sd/JUDGE

¶142

PJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

State of Karnataka v. Laxmibai Basappa Honawad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Laxmibai Basappa Honawad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddappa S/O. Davalappa Chavan Vs State of Karnataka

Siddappa S/O. Sangappa Chalawadi Vs State of Karnataka

Maratti Ravi S/O Shankarappa Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Durga Rao Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Shankarappa S/O Kallappa Hugar

Ambika Vs Girish