IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2491 of 2011 DATE: 25.08.2011 Between: The Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P …… Petitioner And Pampari Chandraiah …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2491 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The Public Prosecutor filed this appeal against acquittal of the accused/respondent of the offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C passed by the lower Court. 2) It is alleged that the accused had illegal direct connection from the electric poll with poor quality old wire without any insulation cover and which was tied to wooden poll of the defacto-complainant, which wooden poll was connected with an aluminium wire for using the same for hanging washed clothes and that the 1st deceased Pampari Lakshmi tried to hang washed clothes and touched the aluminium wire, she got electric shock and that when she made hue and cry, her younger son Satyanarayana came to her rescue and that he also got electric shock and that both of them died on the spot. M.O-1 is aluminium wire which was being used for drying washed clothes by the deceased at her house. M.O-2 is the wire with which the accused is stated to have taken connection from over head lines from the electric poll to his house. Plea of the accused is one of total denial. 3) P.W-1 is husband, P.Ws 2 and 3 are sons and P.W-4 is daughter of the 1st deceased Lakshmi. The 2nd deceased Satyanarayana is son of the 1st deceased and P.W-1. None of P.Ws 1 to 4 was present at the scene when the offence occurred. After coming to know about the offence, they came and saw dead bodies of both the deceased. P.Ws 5 and 6 turned hostile to the prosecution. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are official witness and formal witnesses. At the time of examination of the scene under the cover of Ex.P-7 scene of offence observation report, the investigating officer did not secure presence of any electrical expert from Electricity Department to prove that the accused was drawing electrical supply to his house from overhead lines unauthorisedly and to show that the said unauthorised conductor connected between the electrical poll and house of the accused was without insulation and it caused passing of electricity in M.O-1 aluminium wire meant for drying of clothes in the house of the deceased. Though P.W-11 was examined by the investigating officer subsequently, his evidence is based on hypothesis and not on factual basis. 4) The lower Court further pointed out that P.W-4 in cross- examination admitted that her father P.W-1 was also drawing electricity to their house unauthorisedly from the electric poll from the overhead lines. There is no evidence produced by the prosecution to show that it was the accused who connected electric poll and his house with defective conductor and that the said conductor had fallen on M.O-1 aluminium wire resulting in electrocution of the deceased 1 and 2. In the absence of any such evidence, the prosecution has to fail and accordingly the lower Court recorded acquittal of the accused. There are no grounds in this appeal to come to contra conclusion. 5) Hence, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 25, 2011 ksh