P.N.Harkauli - (1.) THIS application in revision has been filed by Indrapal. The applicant was convicted under sections 304-A IPC and 337 IPC by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judl.), Fatehpur, who sentenced him to two years R. I. under Section 304-A IPC but did not pass a separate sentence under Suction 337 IPC because it was a minor offence. The applicant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that in the month of May 1969, on the occasion of the marriage of his sister the applicant Lald an unauthorised naked electric line from the tubewell to his house for lighting purposes etc. This line was allowed to remain there even after the marriage. On 8-6-1969 the electric wires either got loose or were broken and fell down on the ground. Two children who came in contact with the same were electrocuted and two other persons received injuries. The learned counsel for the applicant contended before me that taking an electric line like this may be prohibited under the Electricity Action Rules but it could not be said to be a rash or negligent act and so the applicant could not have been convicted under either of the aforesaid sections. I am wholly unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. Taking out of an electric line with naked wires on bamboo poles is on the face of it fraught with such grave risk, that it can hardly be considered to be anything other than an act of rashness and negligence. I am unable to agree that the act of the applicant in taking unauthorised electric line like this was not a rash or negligent act. I was not shown any authority by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention. Consequently I am of the opinion that the applicant was rightly convicted under Section 304-A IPC.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant then contended that this was a fit case for reducing the sentence. He pointed out that there was admittedly no intention on the part of the applicant to cause injury to anyone and that the applicant who is a villager, probably did not realise the risk involved in taking the electric line like this. This it was argued, was not a case where the applicant deliberately did an act which he knew or thought to be dangerous. He further pointed out that the applicant took this line to his house in connection with his sister's marriage. THEse submissions do appear to have force considering all these circumstances and also the fact that the occurrence took place several years back. 1 think it would not be proper to send the applicant to jail and a sentence of fine will meet the ends of justice. The revision is accordingly allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant is maintained but his sentence of] imprisonment is reduced to one of fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine the applicant shall undergo six: months R. I. The applicant is given two months time, from the date of receipt: of record in the lower court to deposit: the fine. The record of the case be sent; back to the trial court without delay. Revision partly allowed.;