Holding

Section 304A IPC applies only where there is no intention or knowledge to cause death; in the present case such intent was not proved, so conviction under Section 304A is appropriate.

Summary

The deceased's father and brother died after touching a live electric wire that the accused, Chittarmal, had allegedly fixed near a field. The prosecution alleged that the wire was placed with the intention to kill the father, leading to a conviction under Section 302 IPC by the trial court. The accused claimed the wire was installed to keep wild animals away, and the High Court, finding the prosecution unable to prove intent or knowledge, reduced the conviction to Section 304A IPC, which punishes death caused by rash or negligent act. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the elements of intention or knowledge were established and reiterated that Section 304A applies only when such mens rea is absent. The Court held that the defence version was plausible and the prosecution had not proved the requisite intent, so the conviction under Section 304A was proper. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court’s judgment.

Issues considered

Whether the accused possessed the intention or knowledge to cause death, attracting liability under Section 302 IPC
Whether the death can be characterized as caused by a rash or negligent act under Section 304A IPC
Whether the defence that the wire was installed to keep wild animals away negates the element of intent

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304A

Subjects

Section 302 IPCSection 304A IPCculpable homicidedeath by negligenceelectrocutionintentionknowledgedefencewild animalscircumstantial evidence

Judgment

A STATE OF RAJASTHAN x _,
l:
CHITTARMAL

JUNE 21. 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860-s.304A-Protection under-When available-Held:
For protection under s.304A there should be neither intention nor knowledge
to cause death-When any of these two elements is present, s.304A has no
c application.

Penal Code, 1860-ss.304A and 302-Death due to electrocution on
coming into contact with naked live electric wire-Electric wire allegedly
fvced by Respondent with the intention to kill deceased-Plea of accused in
D defence that he put the wire to prevent wild animals from going into his
field-On facts, held: Defence version was probable-Prosecution not able
to establish accusation under s.302-High Court right in convicting accused
under s.304A.

The father as well as brother of PWI3 died due to electrocution after
E coming into contact with naked live electricity wire. The electric wire was
allegedly fixed· by Respondent with the intention to kill the father of PWI3.

Trial Court convicted Respondent under Section 302 IPC. High Court,
however, altered conviction to Section 304A.

F In appeal to this Court, it is contended that Respondent is liable to be
convicted under Section 302 and not under Section 304A as held by the High
Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

G HELD: I.I. s'.304A, IPC relates to death caused by negligence. The
Section applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no
knowledge that the act done in all probabilities will cause death. The provision
relates to offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. It applies ..,,...
only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of

H 1152

\.
I
--1,

STATEOFRAJASTHANv. CHITTARMAL (PASAYAT.J.1 1153

death of another person. Rashness and negligence are essential elements A
under Section 304A. It carves out a specific offence where death is caused by
doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable homicide
under Section 299 or murder in Section 300 IPC. Doing an act with the intent
to kill a person or knowledge that doing an act was likely to cause a persons'
death is culpable homicide. When the intent or knowledge is the direct B
motivating force of the act, Section 304A IPC has to make room for the graver
and more serious charge of culpable homicide. (Para 9) 11155-F-H; 1156-A\

1.2. In order to be encompassed by the protection under Section 304A
there should be neither intention nor knowledge to cause death. When any of
these two elements is found to be present, Section 304A has no application. C
[Para 10) (1156-A-B]

2. The defence of Respondent was that to prevent wild animals from going
into his field he had put the wire. The probability of the defence version is
borne out from several factors; firstly two poles were placed to which wire D
was fastened. In fact this aspect has been clearly taken note of by the Trial
Court but it was concluded that merely because the wooden poles were there
that did not establish the defence plea that the same was intended to keep
away wild animals. High Court found that the prosecution itself accepted that
two sticks were fixed. There was also seizure of the wooden sticks which
aspeet was also accepted by the trial court. In view of the analysis made by E
the High Court, the inevitable conclusion is that prosecution has not been
able to establish the accusation under Section 302 IPC and the High Court
rightly convicted the accused under Section 304A IPC.
[Paras 11, 12 and 13) [1156-B-F)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 477 of f
2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.1999 of the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.
786of1998.
G
Naveen Singh (for Aruneshwar Gupta) for the Appellant.

K.K. Gupta for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment
H

' .
)-·
I

1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 120071 7 S.C.R.

A rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. Jaipur Bench
altering eonviction of the respondent from one punishable under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 (in short the 'IPC') to Section 304A IPC. Two
years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation
was awarded.

B 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
I

Shri Girdhari (PW-13) submitted a written report to S.H.O., P.S. Thoi,
District Sikar, to the effect that in the intervening night of 13/14th March, 1997
his father Ram Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') went to his field
C for irrigation. Accused Chhittar due to enmity had fixed naked live electricity
wire near the fencing with the intention to kill Ram Kumar. When in the night
Ram Kumar came in contact with electric wire he died due to electrocution.
At about 3.15 A.M. complainants' younger brother Murlidhar went to give

D
tea to his father, and he also died due to electrocution. After some time uncle
of complainant Sua Lal noticed the dead bodies of Ram Kumar and Murlidhar
lying in the field, he raised alann. Complainant and other neighbour reached
there. At that time Chhittar removed the wire from the electricity pole and tried
-
to remove the wire from the place of occurrence, but he was prevented from
doing so by the persons assembled there. On the basis of this report a case
under Section 302 IPC was registered against the accused (FIR 29/97). The
E Investigating Officer immediately proceeded to the place of occurrence,
prepared panchnama, site plan, and the wire was seized. Post mortem was
conducted by the Medical Officer. According to the post mortem report the
cause of death of Ram Kumar and Murlidhar was due to electrocution. The
accused was arrested on the same day. After completing investigation a
F charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Neem Ka Thana,
for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Learned Magistrate
committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case was tried by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments
G framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against
the accused, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. In this case the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and referred to
several documents. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr. P.C.') was recorded. He stated that he
H has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not cultivating the field .

,
.
STATE OF RAJASTHANv. CHITTARMAL(PASAYAT.J.) 1155

. ' Prosecution witnesses relating to the incident are closely related to the A •
complainant. He has also examined Phool Chand (DW-1) in his defence.

5. On the basis of evidence produced before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, he held that due to enmity with the intention to kill Ram
Kumar and his son Murlidhar, accused Chhittar fixed naked live w\re of
electricity on the drain for supplying water in the field in between the fields B
of Ram Kumar and Chhittar with the result that in the night when Ram Kumar
went to his field he died due to electric current. When Murlidhar went there
to give tea to his father he also came in contact with the electric wire and died
on the spot. On this finding he convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC
and sentenced as mentioned above.
c
6. The High Court found that the proper conviction would be under
Section 304A IPC and not Section 302 IPC as was held by the trial court.

7. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that in this case with full knowledge that death would be the resultant, D
accused had fixed electric wires in the fence and two persons' lost their lives
after coming in contact with the live wire. The conduct of the accused who
was trying to take out the wire showed both his intention and knowledge.
Therefore the trial court had rightly convicted the respondent under Section
302 IPC.
E
8. Learned counsel for the respondent accused supported judgment of
the High Court.

9. Coming to the plea of the applicability of Section 304A it is to be
noted that the said provision relates to death caused by negligence. Section
304A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no F
knowledge that the act done in all probabilities will cause death. The provision
relates to offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. It applies
only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of
death of another person. Rashness and negligence are essential elements
under Section 304A. It carves out a specific offence where death is caused G
by doing a rash or negligent act and that act does nc..t amount to culpable
homicide under Section 299 or murder in Section 300 !PC. Doing an act with
the intent to kill a person or knowledge that doing an act was likely to cause
a persons' death is culpable homicide. When the intent or knowledge is the
direct motivating force of the act, Section 304A IPC has to make room for the
H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f 2007) 7 S.C.R.

A graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide.

I0. In order to be encompassed by the protection under Section 304A
there should be neither intention nor knowledge to cause death. When any
of these two elements is found to be present, Section 304A has no application.

B 11. It is to be noted that the defence of the accused was that to prevent
wild animals from going into his field he had put ~he wire. It is to be noted
that the case rested on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances
highlighted were as follows:

"(I). enmity with the deceased; (2) presence of accused when Sua
c Lal raised alann after seeing the dead body of Ram Kumar and
Murlidhar; (3) accused removed the electric wire from the electric pole
in presence of Sua Lal; (4) accused tried to remove the wire from the

-
place of occurrence but he was prevented to do so by the neighbours
who assembled by that time and (5) extra judicial confession."

D 12. The High Court found that the so called judicial confession was not ;
0

established while the other aspects were clearly established. The probabilitY
of the defence version is borne out from several factors; firstly two pores were
placed to which wire was fastened. In fact this aspect has been clearly taken
note of by the trial court but it was concluded that merely because the
E wooden poles -were there that did not establish the defence plea that the same
was intended to keep away wild animals. High Court found that the prosecution
itself accepted that two sticks were fixed. There was also seizi.lre of the
wooden sticks which aspect was also accepted by the trial court.

13. In view of the analysis rnade by the High Court, the inevitable
F conclusion is that prosecution has not been able to establish the accusation
under Section 302 IPC and the High Court rightly convicted the accused
under Section 304A IPC.

14. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.