Karnataka HC Quashes Section 304A IPC Charge Against Landowner in Electrocution Death: No Overt Act, No Trial

The Dharwad Bench held that a landowner cannot be tried for culpable negligence causing death merely because the fatal electric wire passed through her property, without any allegation of an overt act on her part.

The High Court of Karnataka at its Dharwad Bench, on 27 July 2026, quashed criminal proceedings under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against a Hubballi-based doctor, Smt. Nagarekha Hebasur, who had been charge-sheeted as Accused No. 1 in connection with the electrocution death of a farm labourer. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, sitting singly, found that the complaint and the charge sheet contained no allegation that the petitioner had taken any electricity connection to a bore well or had committed any overt act of negligence. The court was clear that ownership of land through which an electric wire passes cannot, by itself, ground a charge of criminal negligence under Section 304A. The quashing was expressly confined to proceedings against Accused No. 1; the trial against the remaining accused continues.

The Incident and the Complaint

The complaint was lodged on 15 May 2021, the same day as the incident. According to the complainant, one Sivappa Basappa Adhaganchi came and informed him that his son had died of electrocution after an electric wire from a transformer fell on a fence at the farm where the son was working as a coolie. The time noted in the complaint was around 8.50 in the morning.

The complainant further stated that the information was passed to the local office of HESCOM (the electricity distribution company), whose officials visited the site, inspected it, and disconnected the fallen electric line. The original allegations of negligence in the complaint were directed at Narayan Hepsoor, Chandragowda Patil, and R. K. Sayed for not properly maintaining the transformer. An allegation was also made against a Section Officer named Chandrasekhar Kalimath.

When the police filed the charge sheet, Narayan Hepsoor himself was not included. Instead, his wife, Smt. Nagarekha Hebasur — the petitioner — was charge-sheeted as Accused No. 1 on the basis that the property in question belonged to her.

The Legal Issue: Can Property Ownership Alone Attract Section 304A?

Section 304A of the IPC fastens criminal liability on a person who causes the death of another by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. The essential question before the court was whether Smt. Nagarekha Hebasur's status as the owner of land on which the transformer stood was sufficient, without more, to expose her to that liability.

Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M. L. Vanti appearing for Sri. V. M. Sheelvant, argued that there was no allegation anywhere in the complaint that the petitioner had taken an electricity connection to the bore well. That specific allegation — of taking an illegal or unauthorised connection — was made only against Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3, namely Chandragowda Patil and R. K. Sayed. Counsel also pointed to the physical circumstances: the transformer was installed in the petitioner's land, and the electric wire had fallen to the ground due to heavy rain and wind on 14 May 2021, the night before the death.

The State's High Court Government Pleader, Sri. Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, opposed the petition. The HCGP's position was that the contentions raised by the petitioner required examination at trial and could not be entertained in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The HCGP also drew the court's attention to a letter dated 16 February 2022 from the Assistant Engineer. That letter referred to survey number 39/4 where the 25 Kilo Watt transformer was installed. It stated that about six months earlier, one Shivappa Bamigatti, a resident of Ramnal, had connected a wire to the transformer, which HESCOM officials subsequently disconnected. The owner had been instructed in writing not to tie any wire to the transformer. The allegation was that, despite those written instructions, a wire was again tied to the transformer.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Hegde examined the charge sheet materials and found the position straightforward. The complaint attributed the act of taking an electricity connection to the bore well to Accused No. 2 (Chandragowda Patil) and Accused No. 3 (R. K. Sayed). No such act was alleged against the petitioner.

The court articulated the governing principle: “the owner of the property cannot be accused unless an overt act on the part of the petitioner is established or pleaded.” No such allegation had been made against Smt. Nagarekha Hebasur.

Turning to the letter from the Assistant Engineer, the court observed that the act of tying the wire to the transformer was attributed to Chandragowda. That attribution could not be transferred to the petitioner merely because the land was hers. The court expressly stated that the allegation against Chandragowda could not be attributed to the petitioner.

On the HCGP's objection that the contentions required trial, Justice Hegde did not accept that argument. Where the charge sheet materials themselves disclose no allegation of any overt act against an accused, a trial serves no purpose and the power under Section 482 of the Code (or its BNSS equivalent, Section 528) is available to prevent that abuse of process. The court reached the conclusion that the charge sheet materials did not warrant a trial against Accused No. 1.

The Limited Scope of the Order

Justice Hegde was careful to confine the quashing precisely. The order records that the court took this view only because there was no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner had taken an electricity connection to the bore well — an allegation that did exist against the other two accused. The observations made in the order were stated to apply only to Accused No. 1. Proceedings against the remaining accused in CC No. 777/2022 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi continue unaffected.

Order

Criminal Petition No. 104228 of 2022 was allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No. 777/2022 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaghatagi, insofar as they relate to Accused No. 1 Smt. Nagarekha Hebasur, were quashed. The court clarified that the quashing was grounded solely on the absence of any allegation that the petitioner had taken an electricity connection to the bore well, and that its observations were limited to Accused No. 1.