Karnataka HC Refuses To Let BESCOM Officer 'Off Hook' For Deaths After Transformer Burst, Says Compensation Doesn't Mask Dereliction Of Duty

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal prosecution initiated against a Junior Engineer in BESCOM, after a father and her daughter died by electrocution due to a transformer burst on a road.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Mahanthesh S Nagur and said, “There are several complaints, before the fateful day, to rectify the defect in the transformer. The Police, on investigation, have appended those complaints to the charge sheet. These are undisputed facts. Prima facie negligence is writ large qua the petitioner, or other accused in the case at hand. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the on-going trial against the petitioner.”

As per the prosecution case on 23-03-2022, when Shivaraj and his daughter were returning home on a two wheeler, a BESCOM transformer beside the road-side burst. Due to the burst, the oil spilled over from the transformer caught fire and directly fell on Shivaraj and his daughter; both of whom sustained grave burn injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Victoria hospital where they succumbed to injuries.

Following which a bystander registered a complaint for offences punishable under Sections 285, 338 of the IPC. The Police after investigation filed a chargesheet for the aforesaid offences including the offence under Section 304A (causing death due to negligence) of the IPC.

The petitioner seeking quashing of the case contended that the petitioner has got nothing to do with the bursting of the transformer, as it has accidentally happened and for such accident negligence cannot be attributed against the petitioner who is the Junior Engineer in BESCOM. It was the role of other accused who are contractors and others who had to upkeep the transformer. The act of the petitioner is neither negligent nor rash for attracting the offence under Section 304A of the IPC.

The prosecution opposed the plea submitting that petitioner is the officer in-charge to patrol and keep the transformer out of danger. Moreover, complaints were pending before the BESCOM to set right the transformer and it has not been done.

On going through the records the court said, “In the case at hand, the petitioner was responsible for the upkeep of the transformer despite it being contracted out or not. It is his responsibility for such patrolling and maintenance of the transformer. The act of the petitioner may not be rash, but it is undoubtedly negligent.”

Court then noted the report submitted by the Electrical Inspectorate wherein it was observed that BESCOM officers who are responsible should have checked oil leakage in the explosion vent and repaired it intermittently and if that had been done the mishap could have been easily avoided.

The court said “Therefore, there has been dereliction of duty on the part of the officers of BESCOM.”

Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the wife of the deceased has been paid Rs.20,00,000, compensation on the death of the husband and the daughter, the court said, “said submission is preposterous to say the least. Payment of any amount of compensation by BESCOM, can by no stretch of imagination absolve the officers of the allegation of dereliction of duty.”

It added “Payment of compensation can never override or mask the allegation of dereliction of duty. Today the incident may have happened to the deceased and it can happen to others if the officers are left off the hook on the ground that compensation is paid to the family of the deceased.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Madesh V M for Petitioner.

Addl SPP B N Jagadeesh for R1.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 454

Case Title: Mahantesh S Nagur AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6647 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order