/2022 INSC 0385/
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 900 OF 2017
Nanjundappa & Anr. … Appellants
Vs. 
The State of Karnataka       …Respondent
JUDGMENT
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. This   Appeal   challenges   the   judgment   and   Order
dated 07.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka
at   Bengaluru   in   Criminal   Revision   Petition   No.
1048/2010 dismissing the Petition filed by the appellants
herein.     The   High   Court   confirmed   the   Judgment   and
Order   of   the   Trial   Court   and   the   First   Appellate   Court
convicting the Appellants under Section 304(A) read with
Section  34  of the  Indian  Penal Code (for   short ‘IPC’) and
1

sentencing   them   to   undergo   Simple   Imprisonment   for   1
year  and  3 months and penalty  of Rs. 3000/­ each  with
default stipulation of Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
2. Facts   shorn   of   unnecessary   details   as   unfolded   by
prosecution are as under:
On   21.11.2003   at   around   1.00p.m.   Sri   Uday   Shankar
S/o PW2 was watching TV in his house at Molakalmuru
Town,   New   Police   Quarter   No.   13,   when   there   was   a
sudden   sound   in   the   TV.   Noticing   the   sound,   the
deceased   got   up   to   separate   the   dish   wire,   the   TV
connection   wire   and   the   telephone   wire,   which   were
entwined together. At this point, he felt an electric shock
and   his   right   hand   was   burnt   and   as   a   result   of   this
shock he succumbed to death. Upon enquiry, during the
course of investigation, it was found that Appellant No. 2,
who   was   a   daily   wage   worker   working   under   the
supervision   of   Appellant   no.   1,   an   employee   in   the
telephone   department,   had,   while   working   on   the   DP
2

Pole,   pulled   the   telephone   wire.   The   telephone   wire   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   at   PW2’s   house   and   as   the   deceased
went to separate the telephone wire and cable wire, there
was   a   short   circuit   and   thereby,   the   right   hand   of   the
deceased was burnt and he died because of electrocution.
It   is   further   alleged   that   the   said   incident   took   place
because   of   the   negligent   act   on   the   part   of
Appellant/accused No. 1 and Appellant/accused No. 2. 
3. The   conviction   of   the   Appellants/Accused   rests   on
circumstantial   evidence   and   the   circumstances
highlighted were as follows:
(1) PW1/doctor’s   report   suggesting   that   death
was   due   to  instantaneous   cardiac  arrest  and
paralysis   of   the   brain   stem   secondary   to
shock. 
(2) Deposition   of   PW9,10,16,   who   were   Police
Staff   residing   in   the   Delhi   police   quarters,
3

stating that they also touched the telephones
in   their   respective   houses   and   felt   the
presence of electricity and immediately threw
away the telephone instruments. 
(3) Evidence   of   PW1/doctor,   who   stated   that   on
the   same   day   he   had   examined
Appellant/Accused   no.   2   for   injuries   as   he
had sustained a fall from the pole and an out­
patient slip was also issued to him. 
(4) Evidence   of   the   Prosecution   witnesses   that
the   deceased   upon   hearing   noise   from   the
television   set   first   switched   off   the   main
electricity   switch   and   then   tried   to   separate
the wires. However, there was still current in
the wires.
(5) Evidence of PW15, who was a higher officer in
the   Department   of   Telephone   stating   that
Appellant/accused   no.1   and   Appellant/
accused   no.   2   were   on   duty   and   working   on
that day. 
4. The   defence   taken   by   the   Appellants/accused   is
that   on   the   day   of   the   incident,   they   had   not   attended
4

any telephone wire repair at the place of the incident and
death   of   the   deceased   was   not   due   to   their   carelessness
and   negligence.     While   the   Appellants/accused   have   not
denied   the   post­mortem   report   which   attributes   the
death   to   instantaneous   cardiac   arrest   and   paralysis   of
the   brain   stem   secondary   to   shock,   the   source   of   the
shock   is   implied   to   be   the   television   set   and   not   the
Telephone connection.
5. After   giving   our   careful   consideration   to   the
respective submissions made by  the  learned  Counsel for
the   parties   and   considering   the  facts   and  circumstances
of the case and evidences on record   even if we take that
the   Appellants/accused   were   in   fact   working   on   the   DP
pole   on   the   day   of   the   incident,   we   find   it   difficult   to
believe   that   with   the   alleged   11KV   current   running
through   Telephone   wire,   the   wires   did   not   melt;   rather
with   the   alleged   volts   of   current   passing   through   the
telephone instruments PW9,10,16 were able to throw the
5

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  only  around 220V. Hitherto,
the   evidence   by   PW9,10   &   16   is   hearsay   and
circumstantial and not worthy of any credence.
6. Now referring to PW1­Doctor’s evidence; he deposed
that Appellant no. 2 had visited him  on the same day of
the   incident   and   had   suffered   abrasion   injuries   on   his
four fingers of both hands i.e., excluding the thumbs and
abrasions   on   both   thighs.   The   record   shows   that   the
deceased   had   also   suffered   abrasion   injury   along   with
burn   injuries.   PW1   deposed   in   Examination­in­chief   in
6

clear   words   that   “ the   blood   vessels   of   right   thumb   finger
and   ring   finger   were   burnt   and   wounds   were   shrinking.”
In   light   of   these   facts   the   lower   court   came   to   the
conclusion   that   Appellant   no.   2   also   suffered   abrasion
injuries   due   to   electric   shock   just   as   the   deceased.   This
conclusion   however   does   not   inspire   confidence   in   our
eyes   bearing   in   mind   that   if   Appellant   no.2   had   infact
suffered   an   electric   shock   coming   in   contact   with   11KV
high   tension   line   and   sustained   a   fall   from   the   pole   he
would   have   suffered   burn   injuries   too   such   as   the
deceased   and   such   a   shock   along   with   the   fall   could
potentially   be   fatal.   However,   the   record   only   shows
abrasions on 4 fingers and thighs. 
7. We   also   find   difficult   to   see   reason   in   the
submission   that   telephone   wires   were   able   to   carry
current   from   an     11KV   high   tension   line   and   did   not
immediately   melt.   It   is   even   more   difficult   to   assimilate
that   such   current   when   passed   through   the   television,
7

did not blast the television set and set the entire wiring of
the   house   on   fire.   Be   that   as   it   may,   the   allegations
against the Appellants are highly technical in nature and
we find 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   of   the   Appellants   that   the
incident took place.
8. Even   the   evidence   of   PW15   is   circumstantial   in
nature,   who   stated   that   as   per   the   job   sheet,   the
Appellants were working at the Police quarters; however,
there   is   no   eye   witness   to   say   conclusively   that   the
Appellants   were   infact   executing   the   work   at   the   place
alleged.
9. Here   it   would   be   useful   to   advert   to   the   dictum   in
the   case   of   Syad   Akbar   Vs.   State   of   Karnataka 1
  in
1       MANU/SC/0275/1979; 1979CriLJ1374
8

which this 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.   In   Syad   Akbar   (supra),   this
Court opined:
“29.   Such   simplified   and   pragmatic   application
of the notion of res ipsa loquitur, as a part of the
general   mode   of   inferring   a   fact   in   issue   from
another   circumstantial   fact   is   subject   to   all   the
principles, the   satisfaction  of   which is   essential
before an accused can be convicted on the basis
of   circumstantial   evidence   alone.   These   are:
Firstly ,   all   the   circumstances,   including   the
objective   circumstances   constituting   the
accident,   from   which   the   inference   of   guilt   is   to
be   drawn,   must   be   firmly   established.
Secondly ,   those   circumstances   must   be   of   a
determinative   tendency   pointing   unerringly
towards   the   guilt   of   the   accused.   Thirdly,   the
circumstances should make a chain so complete
that   they   cannot   reasonably   raise   any   other
hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt. That
is   to   say,   they   should   be   incompatible   with   his
innocence,   and   inferentially   exclude   all
reasonable doubt about his guilt.” 
10.       In   case   of   circumstantial   evidence,   there   is   a   risk   of
jumping   to   conclusions   in   haste.   While   evaluating   such
9

evidence   the   jury   should   bear   in   mind   that   inference   of   guilt
should be the only reasonable inference from the facts. In the
present   case   however,   the   conviction   of   the   accused   persons
seems   wholly   unjustified   against   the   weight   of   the   evidence
adduced.   As   far   as   the   onus   of   proving   the   ingredients   of   an
offence is concerned, in the judgment titled as   " S.L.Goswami
Vs. State of M.P 2
"  this Court held:­
"5   .....   In   our   view,   the   onus   of   proving   all   the
ingredients   of   an   offence   is   always   upon   the
prosecution   and   at   no   stage   does   it   shift   to   the
accused.   It   is   no   part   of   the   prosecution   duty   to
somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the
defence   of   the   accused   does   not   appear   to   be
credible   or   is   palpably   false   that   burden   does   not
become   any   less.   It   is   only   when   this   burden   is
discharged that it will be for the accused to explain
or   controvert   the   essential   elements   in   the
prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not
however for the accused even at the initial stage to
prove something which has to be eliminated by the
prosecution   to   establish   the   ingredients   of   the
offence   with  which   he   is   charged,  and   even  if   the
onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has
to   establish   his   plea,   the   standard   of   proof   is   not
the   same   as   that   which   rests   upon   the
prosecution........................…"
2      
1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC)
10

11. Bearing   in   mind   the   above   principles   which   have   been
laid   down   in   the   decisions   of   this   Court,   we   are   of   the   view
that   the   Courts   below   were   not   justified   in   convicting   the
Appellants of negligence under Section 304A read with Section
34 IPC.
12. For   bringing   home   the   guilt   of   the   accused,   prosecution
has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus
between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim.
Perusal   of   the   record   reveals   that   out   of   various   witnesses
arrayed   by   the   prosecution,   there   are   no   eye   witnesses.   Any
evidence brought on record is merely circumstantial in nature.
We   are   constrained   to   repeat   our   observation   that   it   sounds
completely   preposterous   that   a   telephone   wire   carried   11KV
current   without   melting   on   contact   and   when   such   current
passed through the Television set, it did not blast and melt the
wiring   of   the   entire   house.   It   is   even   more   unbelievable   that
Appellant   no.   2     came   in   contact   with   the   same   voltage   and
managed   to   get   away   with   a   few   abrasions.   The   Appellants
11

therefore are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt; more so,
when there is no report of a technical expert to corroborate the
prosecution story.
13.   Accordingly,   i mpugned   judgment   of   conviction   and
sentence of the appellants is set aside.   The Appellants are on
bail. They shall be discharged of their bail bonds.
14. As a consequence, the appeal stands allowed.
………………………….CJI.
(N.V. RAMANA)
….…………………………J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
..………………………….J.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 17, 2022
12