In these criminal revisions, the Madras High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of two TNEB employees. The High Court acquitted them of offences u/s 337 and 304-A IPC, finding the accusation unfounded given the cause of death.
Judgments confirming conviction set aside; petitioners acquitted of charges; fines refunded; bail bonds cancelled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.08.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Crl.R.C.Nos.12 and 175 of 2011
Arumugam
S/o.Karupanna Mudaliar ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.12/2011
Chengodan
S/o.Palani Gounder ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.175/2011
vs
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thiruchengode Town Police Station,
Namakkal District.
Crime No.777 of 2004 ... Respondent in both revisions
Criminal Revisions filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against judgments of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, passed in C.A.Nos.108 and 109 of 2009 on 29.11.2010 confirming the finding of judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode, passed in C.C.No.160 of 2005 on 23.11.2009.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.V.Sridharan For Respondent : Mr.V.Arul Additional Public Prosecutor *****
2
COMMON ORDER
These revisions arise against two concurrent judgments of Courts below
convicting petitioners for offences u/s.337 and 304-A IPC and sentencing each
of them to pay fine in a sum of Rs.1,000/- i/d 1 month S.I. for offence u/s.337 IPC and 6 months S.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 1 month S.I. for offence
u/s.304-A IPC.
petitioners/accused 1 and 2, who were employed as Line Inspectors with TNEB had two persons carry out electrical work without affording them safety materials and while they were carrying out work, third accused, who was employed in a nearby power loom, switched on the generator resulting in a reverse power flow causing death of one and injuries to another. A case in Crime No.777 of 2004 on the file of respondent was registered for offences u/s.337 and 304-A IPC. Upon completion of investigation and filing of charge
sheet, the case was tried in C.C.No.160 of 2005 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode.
3
marked. On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 23.11.2009, convicted petitioners/accused 1 and 2 for offences u/s.337 and 304-A IPC and sentenced each of them to pay fine in a sum of Rs.1,000/i/d 1 month S.I. for offence u/s.337 IPC and 6 months S.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 1 month S.I. for offence u/s.304-A IPC. There against, petitioners preferred C.A.Nos.108 and 109 of 2009 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, which came to be dismissed
under judgments dated 29.11.2010. Hence, these revisions.
Mangkutapalayam Electrical Board. They were arrayed as accused 1 and 2 while the employee of a power loom was arrayed as third accused. Third accused has been acquitted by trial Court. The admitted prosecution case is
that electrical repair work was underway and owing thereto, the transformer had been switched off for a period of two days. The accident in which one person met his death and PW-1 suffered injuries took place owing to the generator in a power loom factory being switched on resulting in a reverse flow of current through electricity board lines. Appellants stand convicted on the
4
reasoning that they had not taken care to ensure the fixing of an 'earth' rod and the deceased and PW-1 not having been required to wear rubber gloves at the time of occurrence. PW-1, the injured witness, has deposed to these petitioners having ensured that the transformer regulating control of electrical supply to the area had been switched of. When admittedly the accident took place owing to a reverse flow of current from the generator in an adjacent power loom, in propriety, the person in charge thereof ought to have been arrayed as an accused. The accusation against appellants totally is unfounded.
These Criminal Revisions shall stand allowed. The judgments of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, passed in C.A.Nos.108 and 109 of 2009 on 29.11.2010 confirming the finding of judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode, passed in C.C.No.160 of 2005 on 23.11.2009, shall stand set aside. Petitioners are acquitted of all charges. Fine,
if any, paid shall be refunded. Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled.
28.08.2017
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
gm
5
To
6
C.T.SELVAM, J
gm
Crl.R.C.Nos.12 and 175 of 2011
28.08.2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow the criminal revisions filed against the concurrent judgments convicting the petitioners for offences causing death.
Whether the conviction of the petitioners tended to be manifestly unfair or resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice.
Whether the High Court should set aside the lower court judgments and acquit the petitioners.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Arumugam
Chengodan
State
C.T.Selvam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
