Onus to prove all ingredients of offence always upon prosecution, not accused: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shifts to the accused [Nanjundappa and Another v. State of Karnataka]..A three-Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli was of the view that even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false, the burden on the prosecution does not become any less. The Court was hearing an appeal challenging a decision of the Karnataka High Court which had upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..By way of background, the deceased was watching television in his house when there was a sudden sound the TV. He notice that the wires of dish connection, the TV and the telephone wire were entwined together.He tried to separate the same but received an electric shock and later succumbed to the injuries on his right hand from the shock.Upon enquiry, it was found that the appellants who were employees under the telephone department, had while working on the wires, pulled the telephone wire which got detached and fell on the 11 KV power line and electricity passed into the telephone wire. The deceased went to separate the telephone wire and cable wire, there was a short circuit that resulted in deceased suffering shock.Notably, the conviction of the appellants by the trial court based majorly on the following circumstantial evidence:1. Doctor’s report suggesting that death was due to instantaneous cardiac arrest;2. Witnesses stating that they also touched the telephones in their respective houses and felt the presence of electricity and immediately threw away the telephone instruments;3. Telephone department stating that appellants were on duty and working on that day..Before the top court, the appellants argued that they have not attended any telephone wire repair at the place of the incident and death of the deceased was not due to their carelessness or negligence..The Court was of the view that even if it is accepted that the appellants were working at the place of incident, it would be difficult to believe that the telephone wire, from where the deceased received electric shock, did not melt after coming into contact with 11 KV power line. "We also find difficult to see reason in the submission that telephone wires were able to carry current from an 11 KV high tension line and did not immediately melt. It is even more difficult to assimilate that such current when passed through the television, did not blast the television set and set the entire wiring of the house on fire," the Bench observed.The Court also noted that it was difficult to accept the deposition of witnesses which said that they felt electricity when they touched telephone wire but were still unharmed."Even assuming that the deceased and the Prosecution witnesses who received the shock were wearing slippers at the time of contact causing resistance in the current, 11KV is still too strong and any contact with such a high voltage current in all probability should have left any person who came in contact dead and his/her body charred. For reference standard domestic voltage in India is only around 220V," the Court said. .The Court also noted that the allegations against the appellants are highly technical in nature and the prosecution failed to submit any technical report which can help in proving the veracity of averments made by the complainants to suggest that it was due to the alleged acts of the appellants that the incident took place..Thereby, considering the circumstantial evidences, the Court was of the view that the conviction of the appellants was wholly unjustified against the weight of the evidence adduced by the prosecution which was under the obligation to prove the case."In case of circumstantial evidence, there is a risk of jumping to conclusions in haste. While evaluating such evidence the jury should bear in mind that inference of guilt should be the only reasonable inference from the facts. In the present case however, the conviction of the accused persons seems wholly unjustified against the weight of the evidence adduced," the Court held..Relying on its decision in SL Goswami v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the top Court observed that:"For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim. Perusal of the record reveals that out of various witnesses arrayed by the prosecution, there are no eye witnesses. Any evidence brought on record is merely circumstantial in nature."Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the conviction was set aside. .[Read Judgment]