THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1333 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1 State is the appellant herein and this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.09.2004 made in S.C.No.48 of 2004 on the file of the court of the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad whereby the learned Judge acquitted the respondent herein for the offence punishable under section 304-II of IPC and under section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 31.10.2003 at about 2.00 p.m the sons of the de facto complainant aged sixteen years and ten years left the house for collecting fire wood but did not return home. When the de facto complainant went in search of them at about 12.00 Noon at the Sarangapoor village limits she found the dead bodies of her two sons at the fencing of agricultural fields belonging to one Perka Laxmi W/o Narsing Rao @ Adiyana. On inspection the de facto complainant and others came to know that her two sons came into contact with the live wires and because of that they sustained severe injuries. In that connection a case in Cr.No.201 of 2003 was registered for the offences punishable under sections 304 – II of IPC and under section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation on 22.12.2003 at 11.30 a.m the accused came and surrendered herself and voluntarily confessed the commission of offence. During the course of further investigation it came to light that the accused fenced her land with iron wire and gave live electricity connection by committing theft of energy from the poles in order to prevent the wild animals from entering into her cultivating land. Hence the petitioner is liable for punishment under section 304-II of IPC and under section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. 3 Heard. 4 It is true that two innocent boys i.e. the sons of P.W.1 died of electrocution. As per the First Information Report, which was marked as Ex.P.35, the name of the accused person is Perka Lakshmi W/o Narsing Rao @ Adiyana. But, however, the evidence of P.W.13 the Inspector of Police is that on 22.12.2003 the accused surrendered before him at his office and he affected her arrest. It is not known as to whether the said Perka Lakshmi surrendered before P.W.13 or the petitioner herein by name Kethavarth Salkubai surrendered before P.W.13. No clarification or satisfactory explanation was given by the investigating agency in that regard. Further, the trial court held that the positive photos marked as Ex.P.9 to P.19 do not show any fencing except dead bodies of the deceased and even Ex.P.13 also does not show the existence of public electricity pole and taking connection of electricity to the fencing from that pole. 5 From the above it is clear that the person who was shown as accused in the FIR is not the person against whom the trial has been conducted. It is not known as to why and how the respondent herein surrendered before the investigating officer. 6 In those circumstances the court below is justified in recording acquittal. Hence I see no merits in this appeal and the same is thus dismissed. -------------- 10.11.2010 Kvsn