Negligence Of Electricity Dept Leads To Loss Of Lives: Karnataka HC Declines Relief To BESCOM Officials Over Death Of Mother, Child Due To Live-Wire

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a criminal case registered against BESCOM officials who were charged after a mother and her nine-month-old child died due to electric shock caused because of a live wire which was broken and lying on a public street.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Sreeramu V and another who were charged under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (causing death by negligence).

The court said “In the case at hand, the wife and the child of the complainant die. Therefore, there is death due to negligence. Who is responsible for the negligent act is always a matter of investigation or trial.”

It added “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.”

The complainant Santhosh Kumar, had alleged that on 19-11-2023, when they reached Hope Farm, his wife was carrying his daughter aged 9 months and came in contact with the live wire which was broken and lying on the street. The wife of the complainant, due to an electric shock from the live wire, died on the spot along with the baby.

Following the incident there was a hue and cry in the locality. The BESCOM transferred the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner was placed under suspension. The high court reversed both orders, and the petitioners approached the court seeking quashing of the offence.

It was argued that at best it could be the Assistant Engineer who may be responsible and the petitioners who were Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, had no wrongdoing which could be directly attributed to them.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying many officials are charged in the case and everybody cannot wash off their hands on the basis of a report of an officer of the Electrical Inspectorate, who is an officer of BESCOM.

Findings:

The court rejected the report of the Electrical Inspectorate of the Department which had conducted an enquiry and opined that it was nobody's fault and, therefore, the order of suspension was quashed.

Noting that this incident cannot be compared to the branch of a tree falling on the passerby, the Court said that the snap or a broken live wire had been brought to the notice of the Department through the BESCOM helpline.

It said that the Junior Engineer was to attend to it, as it was his duty to immediately attend to helpline complaints.

Then it said “Merely because other officers from Station Operator in the hierarchy have different roles and responsibility, they being officers of BESCOM in the operation and maintenance department, have to undertake periodic checks of wires that are snapped and hanging. It is here the role of all these persons would become applicable.”

Thus it held “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.”

It added that merely because the Electrical Inspectorate of the Department has submitted a report holding that nobody can be held responsible, it would not mean that these petitioners will be left off the hook, as the investigation in the least, should be permitted to continue.

Accordingly, it dismissed the plea.

Appearance: Senior Advocate D.R Ravishankar FOR Advocate Siri Rajashekar for Petitioners.

Additional SPP B.N.Jagadeesh for R1.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 373

Case Title: Sreeramu V and ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.16281 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order