1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2644 OF 2009. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2643 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus Dilip Virsing Pawar and another ... Respondents. ... Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, advocate for the applicant. Mr.Subodh Shah, advocate for the Respondents. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 08.10.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal rendered in Special Case No.164/2007, whereby the Respondents 2 came to be acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 304-A of the I.P.Code and U/s 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 3. On 2.2.2007, reportedly deceased Sharad was found in the proximity of a common Bandh of his land and land of Respondent No.2 Narendra. It was reported to his father that Sharad had received electricity shock. It was evening time. Injured Sharad was immediately rushed to the Rural Hospital at Sakri. He was declared as dead. Consequent upon material gathered during course of investigation carried out in pursuance to the FIR lodged by father of Sharad, both the Respondents were tried before the learned Special Judge. 4. There is absolutely no evidence to infer that deceased Sharad was electrocuted due to his coming into contact with live electricity wire in the proximity of hut situated in the land of Respondent No.2 Narendra, where the illegal electricity connection was obtained by putting a hook on the head wire. The case of the 3 prosecution is that the electricity supply was illegally obtained by putting hook on over-head electricity wire from pole situated in the agricultural land of one Uttamrao and through the land of PW 3 Ragho, who is father of PW 4 Pravin and deceased Sharad. The electricity wire was of 600 ft. length and was having several joints. It was found in hanging condition when the panchanama was drawn. The Respondent No.1 is watchman of the land of the Respondent No.2. The prosecution did not examine any eye witness to show that deceased Sharad had, in fact, come in contact with the live electricity wire situated in the land of the Respondent No.2. There was no reason to rule out possibility that he came in contact with the live electricity wire while he was in his own land. The versions of PW Ragho and PW Pravin as well as PW Kailas are based on hearsay information. The prosecution did not establish that death of Sharad was result of rash and negligent act of the Respondent nor any separate and reliable evidence was adduced regarding theft of electricity by them. Considering the reasons ascribed by the learned 4 Special Judge, I do not find it necessary to grant the leave. The impugned judgment of acquittal can not be faulted with since acceptable reasons are recorded by the learned Special Judge in support of the conclusions and findings drawn by him. Resultantly, the leave is refused. The appeal dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp2644.09