Accidental death
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 19 October 2017
This query is : Resolved
One person died on 11/8/2016 by electrocution on railway Track. Based on local information by GRP they themselves made a FIR on us under section 304 & 304A of IPC. I am working in that area, but the location of the deceased person is not covered in the preview of our working area.
Facts are:- Work was completed on dt.3/8/2016 and electrically commissioned and are in service by Govt. Authorities, and informed all workers not to go to site any type of work. :- (a) regarding location of deceased person the same location is not covered in the preview of our working area. (b) the deceased person is not in the list of authorised workmen submitted to Govt. authorities for Carrying out the subject work. (c) As there was 'no work exists after energization', we are not present at the site of work or on date of incident. Hence, we are not committed a tort (civil wrong), either intentionally or through negligence. The possibility is that the death might have occurred due to the person's own negligence (self –inflicted) or possible background habits.
In the above circumstances am i come under sec.304A. what are the measures to quash FIR.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 19 October 2017
Secondly you did not tell in what way you are associated with matter.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 19 October 2017
Thirdly your query can be understood only after local inspection and perusal of papers.
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 19 October 2017
The death caused by electrocution on railway track.
It is the responsibility of the railway authorities to place on the appropriate place notice with regard to high voltage electricity supply on the railway track and prohibition of any person or animal to go near that area.
The officer in charge of the railway authorities has responsibility to put such notice board in official language as well local language.
The area where high electricity current flows should be covered to prevent easy excess or entry of any human being as well animal in that area.
The dangerous area should also be guarded by trained guards to prevent excess or entry by human beings and animals.
The negligence of the railway officials will count if these minimum precautions were not taken.
To simply say that the person who died by accident was not the employee of the department or construction work was ovet, will not resolve the liability of the railway officials in the accidental death.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 19 October 2017
Thank you Shri Vijay raj Mahajan for your observation. But even after taken all precautions by govt. officials and if any person climbs without proper permission and dies where is the liability of department or construction work.
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 19 October 2017
In such situation it's a case of suicide not accidental death u/s 304a IPC.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 19 October 2017
Thank you sir. There were no body who had given GRP a concrete evidence and people giving vague statement , based on this GRP concluding its a accidental death under sec.304a ipc.
It can be of suicide death based on that (a) there is no work and no permission was available to work. (b) Nobody was present at that site. So can we conclude that it can be a self-inflicted (contributory negligence)
P. Venu
(Expert) 19 October 2017
The facts suggests that matters have reached the court and hence need to be met on merits.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 20 October 2017
Sorry for an anonymous author, no reply.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 20 October 2017
No advice from me to an author who is anonymous.
You can post the query in fresh thread with your identity and material facts.
