Mere Ownership Of Land Where Transformer Is Installed Insufficient To Prosecute For Electrocution Death: Karnataka High Court

Clarifying the criminal liability for electrocution deaths, the Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor who was charge-sheeted for the death of a labourer due to electrocution on her agricultural land. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 289]

The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanth Hegde held that mere ownership of property where a transformer is installed cannot attract criminal liability Section 304A IPC, unless there is an overt act or specific allegation of negligence against the owner.

“…In the complaint, it is stated that the electricity connection to the bore well was taken by…. accused No.2 and 3. There is no allegation that the petitioner has taken any electricity connection to the bore well. There is no allegation that the petitioner has taken illegal electricity connection…. That being the position, in case the electric wire passing through the land of the accused No.1, the owner of the property cannot be accused unless an overt act on the part of the petitioner is established or pleaded. No such allegations are made…”, the court said while allowing the FIR quashing plea.

The court, while allowing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, observed that there was no allegation that the petitioner-landowner, who is a doctor, had taken any electricity connection to her bore well. The court added that the allegations were specifically against the co-accused who had allegedly tied an electric wire to the transformer.

“…Since, the wire is said to have been tied to the transformer by Chandra Gowda [accused no.2 ], the allegation against Chandra Gowda cannot be attributed against the petitioner”, the court added.

The incident happened in May 2021, when a third party informed the complainant that his son had died of electrocution. According to the complaint before the police, an electric wire from a transformer had fallen on the fence of a farm where the complainant's son was working as a coolie.

The complainant alleged that the incident occurred due to the negligence of three accused, including the land owner-doctor, who had not properly maintained the transformer. The police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner on the basis that the property belonged to her.

The petitioner specifically alleged that the connection was taken by accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Chandragowda Patil and R. K. Sayed). The petitioner argued that in the absence of any allegation of negligence on her part, she could not be prosecuted under Section 304A of the IPC.

The State Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the contentions raised by the petitioner required trial, and could not be considered in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The Court noted from the charge sheet and submissions of HCGP that a letter dated February 16, 2022, addressed by the Assistant Engineer, indicated that in Sy.No.39/4, a 25 Kilo Watt transformer was installed. It was alleged that six months prior, one person had connected a wire to the transformer, which was disconnected by HESCOM officials with instructions not to tie the wire to the transformer. The allegation was that despite such written instructions, the wire was tied to the transformer.

While quashing, the Court clarified that the quashing was applicable only to the petitioner/accused No.1, and that the allegations against the remaining two accused would continue to be pursued:

“..It is made clear that the Court has taken this view to quash proceeding against accused No.1 as there is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner/accused No.1 has taken electricity connection to the bore well. These are the allegations against remaining two accused”, the court concluded.

Case Title: Smt. Nagarekha v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: Criminal Petition No.104228 of 2022 (

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 289

Click Here To Read/Download Order