SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- M.B. Shah and S.N. Variava, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2001 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2435 of 2000]. D/d. 8.1.2001

Ram Kumar Laharia - Appellant

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondents

For the Appearing Parties :- Mr. A.K. Sanghi, Mr. Uma Nath Singh, Mr. Vinod K. Shukla and Mr. Rajesh Prasad Singh, Advocates.

Indian Penal Code, Section 304A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 239, 240 and 482 - Framing of charge - Trial court framing charge under Sections 302, 304 Indian Penal Code - In revision High Court assessed the evidence itself and concluded that evidence was absurd and charged the accused under Section 304A Indian Penal Code - Order of High Court set aside - High Court committed error - It was not for the Court to weigh or assess the evidence - It was not possible for the Court, at this stage of charge to come to a conclusion that this evidence was absurd or inherently improbable.

[Paras 8 and 9]

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J. - Leave granted.

2. Heard parties.

3. This Appeal is against an Order dated 29th March, 2000 by which an order framing charges under Sections 302 and 304 of Indian Penal Code has been quashed. By the Impugned Order the prosecution is directed to be proceeded only under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act.

4. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :

2nd Respondent was possessing a field by the side of Shankar river. 2nd Respondent used to take water from the river to his field for irrigation purposes. 2nd Respondent did not have electric connection. It is claimed by the prosecution that he was taking illegal electric connection.

5. On 2nd May, 1999 a boy, named Santosh, who was aged about 11 years, died due to electric shock by coming in contact with the live wire through which 2nd Respondent was illegally taking electric connection. Some persons have give statements that the boy was swimming in the river and the wire accidentally broke and fell in the water resulting in the boy being electrocuted. On this basis, by the impugned Order prosecution is directed to be proceeded with only for offences under Section 304 Indian Penal Code and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act.

6. However, two eye witnesses by name Hari bai aged about 12 and Sandhya bai aged about 7, have given statement to the police that 2nd Respondent had called the deceased Santosh to him and had given electric shock to the deceased on his chest and other parts of the body with the help of other accused. The story given by the two eye witnesses is that thereafter 2nd Respondent and other Accused have thrown the body into the river along with the live wire. It must be mentioned at this stage that 5 burn injuries have been found on the dead body.

7. The Trial Court after considering the facts and material framed charges under Sections 302 and 304 of Indian Penal Code and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act.

8. The High Court, in Criminal Revision, by the impugned Order has proceeded to disbelieve the evidence of the eye witness. The High Court has noted that, at this stage, the evidence was not to be weighed by the Court. But the High Court holds that the Court could still assess the improbability or absurdity of the statement of the eye witnesses. The High Court holds that the statements of the two witnesses Sandhya bai and Hari bai were so absurd and improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused for offences under Section 302 or Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. In our view, the High Court has committed a patent error. As noted by the High Court itself, at this stage, it was no open for the Court to weigh or assess the evidence. It was not possible for the Court, at this stage, to come to a conclusion that this evidence was absurd or inherently improbable. Prima facie at least the 5 burn injuries support the case that the boy was not just electrocuted by a live wire falling in the river in which he was swimming. They prima facie suggest direct contact with the live wire. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Order of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is set aside.

The Appeal is accordingly allowed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on the basis of charges framed by it.

Appeal allowed.