[Section 304A IPC] Direct nexus between negligence by accused and death of victim necessary to prove guilt: Top Court

Read Time: 09 minutes

For bringing home the guilt of the accused under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim, held the Supreme Court on Tuesday. 

Section 304A of the IPC states as follows:

[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.]

A CJI-led bench further held that in case of circumstantial evidence, there is a risk of jumping to conclusions in haste and while evaluating such evidence the jury should bear in mind that inference of guilt should be the only reasonable inference from the facts.

Accordingly, a bench of CJI Ramana along with Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli set aside the conviction of Nanjudappa and one other person of negligence under Section 304A read with Section 34 IPC.

As per the facts of the case, after noticing a sound in the TV of his neighbour, the deceased had gotten up to separate the dish wire, the TV connection wire and the telephone wire, which were entwined together. At this point, the deceased felt an electric shock and his right hand was burnt and as a result of this shock he succumbed to death.

Upon enquiry, it was found that Appellant No. 2, who was a daily wage worker working under the supervision of Appellant no.1, Nanjudappa, an employee in the telephone department, had, while working on the DP 2 Pole, pulled the telephone wire which got detached and fell on the 11 KV Power line and electricity passed into the telephone wire. 

At this time, there was a sound in the TV and as the deceased went to separate the telephone wire and cable wire, there was a short circuit due to which the deceased died as a result of electrocution.

The Top Court found it difficult to believe that with the alleged 11KV current running through the Telephone wire, the wires did not melt; rather with the alleged high voltage passing through the telephone instruments, three prosecution witnesses living in the same locality as the deceased, were able to throw the telephone instruments away upon contact and lived to tell the tale unharmed.

"Even assuming that the deceased and the Prosecution witnesses who received the shock were wearing slippers at the time of contact causing resistance in the current, 11KV is still too strong and any contact with such a high voltage current in all probability should have left any person who came in contact dead and his/her body charred. For reference standard domestic voltage in India is around 220V....", noted the top court.

Court further remarked that it was even more difficult to assimilate that such current when passed through the television, did not blast the television and set the entire wiring of the house on fire.

Also, since the allegations were highly technical in nature, Court noted that no report or even inspection was conducted by a technical expert to assess the veracity of the averments made by the complainants to suggest that it was due to the alleged acts that the incident took place.

Further reliance was placed on the dictum in the case of Syad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka wherein the top court proceeded on the basis that doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case as its applicability in an action for injury by negligence is well known.

Referring to reliance on circumstantial evidence by courts below, the bench opined that in the present case, the conviction seemed wholly unjustified against the weight of the evidence adduced.

Thus, noting that there were no eye witnesses and evidence brought on record was merely circumstantial in nature, the Top Court held that the appellants were are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt; more so, when there was no report of a technical expert to corroborate the prosecution story.

Case title: Nanjundappa & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka