Talk to a lawyer @499

News

The responsibility of proving an offence is always on the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused - SC

Feature Image for the blog - The responsibility of proving an offence is always on the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused - SC

CASE: Nanjundappa and Another v. State of Karnataka

BENCH: A three-Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli 

The Supreme Court recently held that the responsibility of proving an offence is always on the prosecution, and at no stage does it shift to the accused.

The Bench was of the view that even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible, the burden of proving is always on the prosecution.

The Court was hearing an appeal against the decision of the Karnataka High Court, where the court had upheld the conviction of the appellants under causing death by negligence of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

FACTS

The deceased, while watching television, heard a sudden sound from the TV. He noticed that the wires of the telephone, dish connection, and TV were entwined together. He tried to separate the cables but received an electric shock. The deceased later died due to injuries on his right hand from the shock.

Upon examination, it was found that the appellants, employees under the telephone department, pulled the telephone wire, which got separated and fell on the 11 kV power line and electricity passed into the telephone wire. 

HELD

The bench noted that the appellants had not attended any telephone wire repair at the place of the incident. Further, the bench was of the view that even if the appellants were working at the place of the incident, it is difficult to believe that the telephone wire, from where the deceased received the electric shock, did not melt even after receiving an 11 KV power line shock.

The Court said that the allegations are highly technical and the prosecution failed to show that the incident took place due to the alleged acts of the appellants. In this present case, the appellants' conviction was completely unjustified against the weight of the evidence produced by the prosecution, who was under the obligation to prove the case.

The conviction was set aside and the appeal was allowed.