This is a revision petition against an order of acquittal.


2. The facts leading to the case briefly as follows - P.W. 2 was a line-man at Pasumalaithangal. He received intimation that there was no supply for the customer having connection No. 30 and that the meter was not running. When he went to inspect the place, he found that there was a temporary clandestine connection with the main electric wire and a galvanised iron wire put around the paddy field belonging to one Ganesan, P.W. 3. He found on the west to the pumpset and near the fence one person dead out of electric shock. He reported the fact to his superior officer, P.W. 1, who inspected the place and found that on account of the electricity stealthily taken from the main line and passed into the wife put around the fields, one person was dead. P.W. 1 in his turn filed a complaint to the Ginjee Police Station. In the course of the investigation, the investigating officer gathered that the owner of the land, Ganesan, P.W. 3, was in the previous evening the accused giving electric connection to the wife around his lands. The investigation also reveals that Ganesan P.W. 3 was informed by the accused that they were doing so for the purpose of hunting wild boars, that Ganesan told them that human beings may get caught and die and asked them to be careful and that the accused assured him that they would see that no untoward incident occurred. The Investigation Officer filed a report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. to the effect that offences under Ss. 304A, 379 read with Ss. 34(2)(b), 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act appeared to have been committed by the accused without probing into the criminal liability of Ganesan himself. The case was taken on file by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram. In the course of trial, Ganesan turned hostile. The doctor who conducted the post mortem examination, was not even examined before the trial. The court below acquitted the accused of all the charges by judgment dated 27-8-1983. Aggrieved by that judgment, the widow of the deceased victim had filed this revision petition.


3. The main ground for revision raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the offence committed was one defined under S. 299, I.P.C. and punishable under S. 304, I.P.C. that it was wrongly considered by the trial court as an offence under S. 304A, that the trial Court which is a Magistrate Court, has no jurisdiction to try the case which is punishable under S. 304, I.P.C. and that it is instead an offence which is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.


4. The power of this Court dealing with a revision petition against an order of acquittal by the victim or the relatives of the victim is limited. The Supreme Court had occasion to go into the matter in three important decisions, viz, Chinnaswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1962 AIR(SC) 1788, 1963 (69) CRLJ 8, 1963 (3) SCR 412 : 1962 AIR(SC) 1788, 1963 (69) CRLJ 8, 1963 (3) SCR 412 Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sargu Singh, 1968 Mad LJ (Cri) 399 : 1968 CrLJ 865) (SC) and Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, 1974 Mad LJ (Cri) 168 : 1973 CrLJ 1404) (SC). The Supreme Court has also indicated some instances in which this court could interfere with an order of acquittal and set it aside. One of such instances is that the court which tried the offence had no jurisdiction.


5. The next question which arises is whether the acts amounts to an offence under S. 304, I.P.C. as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The case of the prosecution is that the accused have connected the iron fence around the paddy fields of Ganesan with the main electric supply in order to hunt the wild boars. Prima facie, they could be aware that specific harmful consequence would or could follow, viz, a human being may happen to come into contact with the wife and meet with death. This is what appears to have happened in this case. There is also a direct and distinct connection between the acts of the accused and the death of the revision petitioner's husband. If the acts attributed to the accused are proved, it would follow that they had the knowledge that they were likely to by their acts to cause death. This is a kind of case contemplated under illustration (a) of S. 299 I.P.C. In that illustration, the act, it is said, may be committed either with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge that the death is likely to be caused. This is a case where knowledge is involved and not the intention. Therefore, prima facie, the acts of the accused would amount to an offence punishable under S. 304, I.P.C. In fact S. 304A I.P.C. is a residual section added after codification to punish certain acts not amounting to culpable homicide. These are acts of daily occurrence, non-offending by nature, but when they are accomplished in a rash and negligent manner they warrant punishment. For coming under S. 304A, I.P.C. there should be neither intention nor knowledge, as contemplated under S. 299 I.P.C. When any of these two is found to be present, even if the act looks otherwise usual, the offence would come under S. 304, I.P.C. There may happen cases of death in respect of which one may have to pause a moment to determine their nature of the offence, yet the border line is discernible.


6. Even though the final report of the investigating officer in this case was to the effect that an offence under S. 304A appeared to have been committed in the case, the trial court should advert its mind to the facts of the case and exercising its power judiciously under S. 204, Cr.P.C. committed the accused to the Court of Session under S. 209, Cr.P.C. This Court had occasion to deal with the respective role of the investigating officer and that of the court in Cr.P.C. 154 of 1982 disposed of by decision dated 1-3-1985. It is once again reiterated that the duty of the Investigating Officer at the end of the investigation is confined to file a report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. whenever any offence appears to have been committed. The duty of framing the proper charge or of committing the accused to the Sessions Court rests entirely on the Magistrate. He should not blindly accept the conclusion of the investigating officer in the final report. He

should review it and if necessary, peruse the records sent along with the report. 7. The records of the case disclose also that the investigation was not properly conducted, and that the investigating officer did not attempt to determine the criminal liability of all those concerned in this case. Therefore, when the case is committed. Sessions Court should attempt to arrive at the truth by using all the powers, which are vested in courts, under Ss. 311, 319 etc. Cr.P.C. 8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed; the order of acquittal is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Magistrate with a direction to commit the accused to the Sessions Court.