Introduction

• This case is an important judgement on the point of death by negligence.

Facts

• The accused had a latrine at the back of his house which was protected by a wall.
  • The wall protecting the accused’s latrine had fallen due to some reasons exposing the latrine to public view.
• Consequently, the deceased, among others, started using the latrine of the accused. The accused resented this and made it clear to them that they did not have his permission to use it and protested against their coming there.
• The oral warnings by the accused to the people using his latrine were ineffective and therefore he wanted to make the entry of his latrine dangerous to intruders.
  • So, for this reason the accused fixed up a naked charged copper wire at the back of his house with a view to preventing the entry of intruders into his latrine.
• On 16^th July 1959 when the deceased was coming out of the latrine after washing her hands, her hand happened to touch the live wire and she died soon after due to shock.
• The accused was charged with an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) which provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
  • However, the accused was convicted by the Sessions Court for an offence under Section 304A of the IPC as he had no intention to cause the death of any person.
• The main law point which was argued before the learned judges of the Hon’ble High Court of Patna was that the accused had a right to private defence of property and the death was caused in the exercise of that right.
• The hon’ble judges of the High Court of Patna did not accept this submission and upheld the sentence passed by the Sessions Judge.
• The accused challenged his conviction to the Supreme Court.

Issue Involved

• Whether the accused had a right to private defence of property against the trespassers on his land to the extent of causing their death?

Observation

• Section 97 of the IPC talks about the right of individuals to defend their property. However, this right is not absolute, as it is subject to the rules laid out in Section 99 of IPC.
  • The law specifies that injuries caused by certain actions, like setting traps, do not fall under the protections outlined in Section 99 or Section 103 of IPC.
• It was argued before the SC that as the deceased was a trespasser on the land of the accused, the accused had no duty of taking care towards her and therefore she could have no cause of action for damages, if she was alive, and therefore the accused has neither committed a tort nor a crime under the IPC.
• SC did not agree with this argument and rejected the application of a common law principle. It emphasized that if there is a clearly defined wrongful action under the IPC, it cannot be excused just because the person involved was a trespasser.
• The court highlighted that being a trespasser does not mean someone loses all rights.
  • While the owner may not have a duty to actively protect the trespasser, they are also not allowed to intentionally cause harm, such as setting traps with the purpose of hurting trespassers.

Conclusion

• SC rejected the accused person's appeal and upheld his conviction under Section 304A of the IPC. The basis for this decision was that the voltage in the live wire was unreasonably high, leading to the serious consequences that occurred.

Note

Section 304A of IPC: Causing death by negligence. -

Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.