IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2002. Judgement reserved on: 17.4.2009 Date of decision: April 24, 2009. Mast Ram …..….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. ….…. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mrr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against judgement dated 7.9.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1998 affirming the judgement dated 30.6.1998 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, in Case No. 160/1 of 1995 convicting the petitioner under Section 336 IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant PW 1 Rup Lal was working as Assistant Lineman with H.P.S.E.B., Sub Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… Division, Ghumarwin in 1995. On 11.1.1995 at place Bhadrog, while he was carrying out repair work on the main transmission line, the petitioner, who was working as Lineman had switched on G.O (ground operative) switch, as a result of which complainant sustained grievous injuries. The complainant was taken to hospital where he remained admitted for five months. The Statement Ex. PW 1/A of Rup Lal was recorded on 8.2.1995 and thereupon FIR Ex. PW 6/B was registered. The complainant was medically examined at Rural Hospital, Ghumarwin and doctor issued MLC Ex. PW 3/A. The matter was investigated, site plan Ex. PW 6/B was prepared. The treatment papers of the complainant were recovered. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the petitioner for offence punishable, under Section 336 IPC. Notice of accusation was put to petitioner accordingly. The prosecution has examined six witnesses and placed on record some documents. The statement of petitioner, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied the prosecution case. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner and the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, hence the petitioner has come in revision. 3. I have heard Mr. Vinay Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate Geneal for the respondent and have also gone through the record. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that there is delay in lodging the first information report. He has submitted that the two courts below have not properly appreciated the material on record. The view …3… taken by the two courts below is not possible in view of evidence led by the prosecution. The learned courts below have erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 336 IPC. It has been submitted that even though sentence imposed upon the petitioner is till rising of the court and fine of Rs.250/- but the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is likely to affect the petitioner adversely, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present revision. The learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State has submitted that the petitioner acted wholly rashly or negligently and on account of his rash or negligent act, the complainant had suffered heavily. The complainant remained admitted in the hospital for months. He has submitted that the two courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record, the conviction and sentence recorded by the two courts below in the facts and circumstances of the case do not require any interference. 4. The Assistant Executive Engineer vide letter dated 12.1.1995 Ex. PW 5/A had informed the Station House Officer, Ghumarwin that Rup Lal, Assistant Lineman met with a non fatal accident on 11.1.1995 at 2.30 p.m. while he was repairing some electric parts of Sub Station at Bhadrog. He was taken to Primary Health Centre, Ghumarwin for getting medical aid. The statement of Rup Lal complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded by PW 6 Inspector Sher Singh. In the statement of PW 6, the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. has been referred Ex. PW 6/A, but on the document Ex. PW1/A has been put. The complainant, in his statement before the police has stated that he alongwith Sadhu Ram, …4… Foreman and Mast Ram Lineman had gone to Bhadrog for connecting LT (Low Tension) line. Sadhu Ram asked Mast Ram to switch off G.O. switch and repair the line, but Mast Ram said that he was not feeling well and not in a position to climb the pole. Mast Ram asked the complainant to climb the pole. He completed the repair work, Sadhu Ram asked him to replace the fuses of HT (High Tension) line also, he replaced the fuses of HT line. Foreman asked him to check whether there is no loose connection of LT or HT line. On checking he found LT line was loose. The moment he tried to tight the line, Mast Ram switched on HT switch. He immediately heard Sadhu Ram saying foolish man why you have switched on the line, you have burnt the man. Thereafter, he became unconscious. He regained consciousness third day in the hospital. He had no enmity with Mast Ram and it appears Mast Ram had switched on G.O. switch intentionally in order to cause harm to the complainant. PW 1 Rup Lal has supported the prosecution case. In cross examination, a suggestion was given to him that he was electrocuted due to his own fault, which he denied. 5. PW 2 Sadhu Ram has stated that he asked Rup Lal to tight the nuts of HT and LT lines. Rup Lal was repairing the nuts but Mast Ram had switched on G.O. switch as a result of which Rup Lal was electrocuted. In cross examination, he denied that Rup Lal was electrocuted as HT line was not having sufficient clearance. PW 3 Dr. P.C. Sharma has stated that on 11.1.1995 Rup Lal was admitted in hospital. On that date MLC was not requested. He again examined Rup Lal on 26.6.1995 and issued MLC Ex. PW 3/A and …5… OPD slip Ex. PW 3/B. The injuries can be caused by electric burn. In cross-examination, he has stated that patient was conscious when he approached him on 11.1.1995. PW 4 Dr. D.R. Sehgal has stated that Rup Lal was admitted in District Hospital, Bilaspur with deep electric burns on 12.1.1995, he treated him. He proved bed head ticket Ex.PW 4/A of Rup Lal. PW 5 Nasib Singh Chandel, Assistant Executive Engineer HPSEB has proved letter Ex. PW 5/A. In cross examination, he has stated that G.O. switch of HT line is in Delag and is also on the transformer. PW 6 Inspector Sher Singh, Investigating Officer has proved site plan Ex. PW 6/B. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has denied the prosecution case. 6. The complainant was taken to hospital for medical aid on 11.1.1995 and he was admitted there. The complainant had received burn injuries on his person. The Assistant Executive Engineer informed Station House Officer vide letter dated 12.1.1995 Ex. PW 5/A regarding the electrocution of complainant. It is different matter that statement Ex. PW 1/A of complainant Rup Lal was recorded on 8.2.1995 and thereafter FIR Ex. PW 6/B was registered. The complainant cannot be blamed for delay in recording his statement, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR was lodged late is rejected. Independently, late recording of first information report has not in any way affected the case on merits. The presence of PW 1 and PW 2 on the spot at the time of accident was not denied by the petitioner. PW 1 in his statement before the police as well as in the court has stated that he repaired LT line as well as fuses of HT line. It has come in evidence …6… that PW 2 Sadhu Ram asked the petitioner to switch off G.O. switch. The purpose of switching off G.O. switch was to disconnect the line where the repair work was to be done by PW 1 complainant. In fact, G.O. switch was switched off when complainant was repairing LT line and HT fuses. It has come in the statement of PW 5 Nasib Singh Chandel, Assistant Executive Engineer that HT line has G.O. switch at Delag and also on the transformer. There is substance in the statement Ex. PW1/A of complainant where he has stated that moment he tried to tight the line, Mast Ram switched on HT line. In answer to question No. 5 in his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has stated that complainant had sustained injuries due to his own negligence as he was repairing the line while the switch of HT line from Delag transformer was not off and due to touching of LT line with HT line, which got connected after breakage. The explanation given by the petitioner for the cause of accident is not believable. The line had already broken and for that purpose it was to be repaired. 7. The complainant, PW 2 Sadhu Ram Foreman and petitioner were not novice. It cannot be presumed that complainant who was working as Assistant Lineman would climb on the pole and would repair live electric wire without taking care that line is switched off. This responsibility was given to petitioner for switching off G.O. switch till the repair work is completed by the complainant. In fact, petitioner switched off G.O. switch and only then repair work was started by the complainant, but when the process of repairing was going on, without waiting and confirming that in fact the repair work …7… had been completed by the complainant, the petitioner switched on G.O. switch which resulted into electrocution of complainant. The switching off G.O. switch by the petitioner of the line when the complainant was on the electric pole and repairing the line is nothing but rash or negligent act on his part. 8. PW 4 Dr. P.C. Sharma has proved MLC Ex. PW 3/A of the complainant and has stated that the injuries mentioned in the MLC can be caused due to electric burns. The petitioner has not denied the accident but he has taken the plea that accident took place due to the fault of the complainant, but this defence of the petitioner is found to be false. The two courts below have concurrently found the petitioner responsible for committing the offence punishable under Section 336 IPC. In revision the scope is limited and re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible unless it is shown that the view taken by two courts below is perverse and is based upon no evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity in the impugned judgement. No case for interference is made out. 9. No other point was urged. 10. The result of above discussion, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. April 24, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.