If Electricity Is Stolen For Temple Festival, Liability Will Have To Be Fastened On Temple Trustee & Executive Officer: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that whenever electricity is stolen for the conduct of temple festivals, the liability under the Electricity Act has to be fastened on the Trustees of the temple and its Executive Officer as they are responsible for providing electricity. While observing so, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy discharged an Electric Contractor who was charged under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 for a mishap that happened in Melmalayanur Arulmighu Angalamman Thirukovil in 2008. "When for the Temple festival, if electricity is stolen, that liability will have to be fastened only on the Trustee of the Temple and the Executive Officer who are responsible for providing electricity. Therefore, convicting the Electric Contractor without any evidence as to whether he did connect from the TANGEDCO line either on his own or on the instructions of the Trustees, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt in respect of the said offense also." The court was hearing an appeal filed by Raja, who was the Electric Contractor when an electric wire snapped in Melmalayanur Arulmighu Angalamman Thirukovil in 2008 resulting in electrocution and death of six devotees and injury to thirty seven devotees. Raja was sentenced by the Trial Court to rigorous imprisonment and fine under Section 304(II) and Section 324 of IPC along with Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Raja contended that there was no written contract to evidence that he was the contractor."In any event, the basis of the charge is that the first accused used inferior quality wire resulting in the incident. So as to level the said allegation, it was incumbent on the prosecution to have proved that the Trustees or Management of the Temple had insisted upon using of a wire of a particular quality which was not used. There is absolutely no evidence on record regarding the same. As a matter of fact, the Trustees did not even had any knowledge as to whether there was any written contract or not. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence on record for the very basis of the charge," his counsel submitted.The State, on the other hand submitted that all the witnesses had deposed regarding the snapping of wire which had resulted in electrocution and death of devotees. Thus, it was argued that the reason for the accident being electrocution, the Electricity Contractor was liable. The court, after hearing both the sides observed that the temple, being a famous one where a large number of devotees visit during festivals, it was incumbent upon the Trustees, H.R & C.E Department officials and the Executive Office to erect structures in a manner to avoid accident. The court added that the authorities had merely made a makeshift barrier using tin sheets and that they should have taken note that usage of tin sheets and iron poles will have a risk of electrocution. The court added that in the present case, no precautions were taken by the organisers and the festival was organized in a casual manner. "Therefore, whenever Temple festival is being organised, the Standard Operation Procedures have to be framed first by them so that all precautions should be taken to avoid any kind of accidents / mishaps," said the court. The court noted that there was no written contract which specified a particular quality of wire to be used, and thus an offence under Section 304(II) was not made out. However, the court added that the contractor should have taken care to properly secure the wire to prevent snapping. Thus, the court opined that only a lesser punishment of causing death by negligence could be fastened on the contractor. However, it is a settled proposition of law that whenever a charge in respect of a higher offense of the same genus is leveled and if the allegation proved by the prosecution make out a lesser offense, even without framing a charge, the accused can be punished for the lesser charge, the court said. Similarly, the court held that Section 324 will not be attracted since there was no intention to cause hurt and instead a lesser offence of Section 337 was made out. The court thus modified the sentence accordingly. Case Title: Raja v State Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 151 Counsel for Appellant: M/s.Ramesh Kumar Chopra Counsel for Respondent: Mr.J.Subbiah Government Advocate (Crl. Side)Click here to read/download the judgment

If Electricity Is Stolen For Temple Festival, Liability Will Have To Be Fastened On Temple Trustee & Executive Officer: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags