Karnataka HC rejects BESCOM officials’ plea to quash criminal case in electrocution incident
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a criminal case registered against BESCOM officials after the death of a woman and her nine-month-old child due to electric shock as the woman came in contact with a live wire broken and lying on a public road.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, who was a part of the single-judge bench hearing the case, dismissed the plea by BESCOM Executive Engineer Sriram and the Assistant Executive Engineer to quash the case filed against them under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (causing death by negligence), reports LiveLaw. The case was registered against the officials based on a police complaint filed by Santhosh Kumar, husband of the deceased woman.
The bench pointed out that, as the wife and the child of the complainant have died, it would amount to negligence, and that who holds responsibility in such cases of negligence would always be a matter of investigation or trial.
Stating that innocent lives were lost due to the negligence of the Electricity Department officers, Justice Nagaprasanna added that the officers would have to face the law and need to be accountable for what he called ‘a casual loss of life of a citizen’. “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,” he told the petitioners.
The complainant Santhosh Kumar had told the police that on November 19, 2023, they went to Hope Farm. His wife was carrying their nine-month-old daughter, when she came in contact with the live wire lying on the street, and the mother-daughter duo died of electrocution, suffering an electric shock.
As the locals reacted strongly to the incident, BESCOM transferred Sriram and suspended the second petitioner, but the High Court reversed both orders, forcing the petitioners to request the court to quash the case against them.
While the advocate representing BESCOM argued that the Assistant Engineer could be considered responsible for the incident, at the most. The petitioners, who held the posts of executive engineer and the assistant executive engineer under BESCOM, had no wrongdoing which could be directly attributed to them.
The prosecution, however, 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 of the Electricity Department, who is an officer of BESCOM. It also rejected the report of the Electrical Inspectorate, which, after its inquiry, opined that it was ‘nobody’s fault’ and quashed the order of suspension.
Justice Nagaprasanna stressed that the death due to electric shock could not be compared to a branch of a tree falling on a passerby. He pointed out that the broken live wire had been brought to the notice of the Department through the BESCOM helpline and the junior engineer was to attend to it, as it was his duty to immediately attend to helpline complaints. The judge also 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.”
The statement of the Electrical Inspectorate in its inquiry report, calling it ‘nobody’s fault’, would not mean that these petitioners will be left off the hook, as the investigation in the least, should be permitted to continue, the High Court has stated.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Judiciary not here to perform Opposition’s role: Former CJI DY Chandrachud
New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, in an exclusive interview with ANI, addressed recent remarks made by Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, who stated that the Opposition has taken it upon themselves to "do the task of the judiciary." Responding to this, Chandrachud clarified that the judiciary's role is to scrutinise laws and ensure they are consistent with the Constitution, not to serve as an opposition force.
"People should not presume that the judiciary should perform the role of the opposition in Parliament or state legislatures. Too often, there's a misconception that the judiciary must act as an opposition. We are here to scrutinise laws and assess executive action for its consistency with the law and the Constitution," said the former CJI.
He further emphasised that in a democracy, there is a distinct space for political opposition and that using the judiciary to fulfil such a role undermines its primary function. "What people try to do is use the judiciary to shoot from its shoulders and convert the Court into a space for political opposition," Chandrachud remarked.
Rahul Gandhi had earlier commented, "We are alone working on behalf of the media, investigative agencies, and judiciary also. This is the reality of India."
When questioned about interactions with leaders from both the Opposition and the ruling party, Chandrachud explained that social interactions are natural during official meetings, such as those required for appointments. "After official discussions, spending a few minutes socialising over tea is normal. We are human beings after all," he said, adding that such moments do not compromise judicial independence.
Regarding the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to his residence during Ganpati Puja, Chandrachud called it a social courtesy. "Such visits are not unique. Prime Ministers have visited judges’ homes on social occasions or even during times of personal loss. These courtesies do not affect the independence of our work," he said.
In September, PM Modi’s visit to Chandrachud’s residence for Ganpati Puja drew criticism from Opposition parties, including Congress and Trinamool Congress, over potential conflict of interest. However, Chandrachud maintained that these interactions are part of elementary social courtesy and do not impact the judiciary's independence.
