Subhash Das vs State Of Tripura

Heard Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.

This is an appeal filed by the appellant, wherein the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.03.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in S.T.41 (ST/S) of 2016 is under challenge. By the said judgment, appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-with default stipulation for commission of offence under Section 304-A of IPC and further to suffer R.I for 3(three) months for commission of offence under Section 337 of the IPC and it was directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

The prosecution case, as noted by the trial court, is as follows:-

"On 10.10.2015 at 9 p.m. Rani Mali, the wife of informant Sunil Ch. Mali, and Kamal Mali, the son of Sunil Mali went to the pond of accused Subhash for taking bath. But Rani Mali, the wife of the informant Sunil got electrocuted in the pond of accused Subhash and died. Kamal Mali, who also got electrocuted in the pond of Subhash, sustained injury and he was shifted to Sabroom hospital."

In course of trial, the learned trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant under Section 337 and 304 (Part II) of IPC. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses to substantiate the charges. After completion of recording of the evidence, the learned Trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. On consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and materials on record, the learned Judge had convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 337/304-A of IPC. It is necessary to mention herein that at the time of argument, the learned Trial Court had altered the charge which he framed earlier under Section 304 Part II of IPC and converted the same under Section 304-A of IPC.

Bring aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the accused-appellant is completely innocent. He is a senior citizen and there was cordial relation between the family of the deceased and the appellant. Everyday many people used to take bath in the pond of the appellant and such type of incident due to electrocution had never happened. It was an accidental affair and the appellant neither had any intention to cause any harm to anyone nor he was responsible nor liable to cause death of the wife of the complainant.

On the other hand, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. submits that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is surfaced that from the house of the appellant some parts of the pond were connected with GI wire and those wires were electrocuted having there connection from the house of the appellant.

On the basis of aforesaid submissions, I have perused the evidence on record.

P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and other witnesses have stated that they found electric wires which are connected from the house of the appellant. On overall assessment of the evidence, I am of the opinion that the deceased died out of electrocution from the live electric wire which got connected from the house of the appellant. The appellant is the owner of the house as well as the pond. However, I find that there was no intention to cause any harm to anyone who used to take bath in pond of the appellant. However, being owner of the house and pond, the appellant should have taken due care to prevent any such untoward incident in the pond which he failed to discharge.

In view of this, in my considered opinion, the conviction of the appellant should be upheld. Accordingly, the conviction is upheld and affirmed. However, it transpires from the record that the appellant is a senior citizen. Considering the extent and nature of offence, the sentence to suffer imprisonment may be modified. Section 304-A prescribes maximum punishment for a period of one year or with fine or with both. Such prescription regarding sentence indicates the intention of legislature that while declaring the sentence, the Court should take into account the extent and gravity including the circumstantial aspects of the offence committed by an offender.

Having viewed thus, keeping in mind all the factors as discussed above, the sentence of suffering imprisonment for 1(one) year for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and further 3(three) months for offence under Section 337 of IPC is modified and reduced to the extent that the appellant shall pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand)

Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offences under Section 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code. The said fine amount shall be deposited to the concerned Court, which in turn, shall pay the same to the survivor/s of the deceased.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant criminal appeal is allowed in part and thus disposed of.