It Is High Time That These Officers Wake Up: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against BESCOM Engineers In Electrocution Death Case
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR against BESCOM Engineers in a electrocution death case.
The Court observed that it is high time that officers wake up and put their effort to obviate such instances.
The Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held “Who is responsible for the negligent act is always a matter of investigation or trial, as the case would be, as existence of the duty to take care is the first and fundamental of the ingredient of a criminal action brought on the basis of negligence. Breach of such duty would lead to consequences flowing from the action that happens due to such breach. At the stage of procurement, till the man on the field who would supervise should be rather diligent that such instances would be obviated. Unfortunately for the negligent act of officers of the Electricity Department, be it any of the ESCOMS of KPTCL, or KPTCL, innocent lives of citizens, are so casually lost. The life of a citizen which is casually lost cannot be buried, holding no role on the part of the officers of the Electricity Department. They need to be responsible and accountable. Therefore, it is high time that these officers wake up, right from top brass to the man on the field and put their effort to obviate such instances being repeated overall again, as a citizen cannot bear the impact of repetition of such negligence, leading to death of lives.”
Senior Advocate DR Ravishankar for the Petitioners while SPP BN Jagadeesh appeared for the Respondents
A writ petition was filed seeking to set aside an FIR registered for the offences under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for negligence. The 1st petitioner is the Executive Engineer and the 2nd petitioner is the Assistant Executive Engineer both working in BESCOM at Whitefield Division. According to the complaint, the wife and the baby of the Complainant died due to electrocution as there was a live wire which was broken on the street.
The issue was whether these officers of BESCOM could be held prima facie guilty of negligence, as obtained under Section 304A of the IPC.
The Court observed, “The recommendation is, old wires are not replaced. Several other instances that happened in the procurement of materials by the KPTCL are also held to be responsible. If some sub-standard material is procured, it would undoubtedly result in such things. Therefore, responsibility would flow from the top brass to the lowest rung of officials. In the considered view of the Court, none can escape the responsibility, when it is the act of negligence in setting things right by the officers. If it is an act of God, it is again an altogether different circumstance. But, due to negligence of these officers of BESCOM, it led to the unfortunate incident of precious lives of citizens casually lost.”
The Court also said that it is trite law that negligence is to be understood to be an omission to do something, which a reasonable man guided upon the consideration of the conduct of human affairs should do, would omit to do those reasonable affairs.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the writ petition.
Cause Title: Sri Sreeramu V and Anr. v. The State of Karnataka and Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate DR Ravishankar and Advocate Siri Rajashekhar
Respondents: SPP BN Jagadeesh
