THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2226 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal arising out of the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.71 of 2002 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar on 27-09-2004. 2. The appellants herein were prosecuted for an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code alleging that they erected live electric wire from the agricultural well of A-1 to their respective houses and on 02-06-2001 there was a heavy rain and the said electric wire fallen on the ground and the deceased Pathlavath Gopal while returning to the village came in contact with the said wire and died on the spot. PW-1 is wife and PW-2 is the brother of the deceased. They went in search of the deceased on that night at 9.00 p.m. and found the deceased lying dead due to electric shock in the field of Ramchander and found a live electric wire from the bore well of A-1 to the houses of A-1 to A-4. PW-3 has removed the electric wire from the bore well of A-1 and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was shifted to his house and Pathlavath Ramulu, the father of the deceased lodged a complaint with the Police on the next day morning at about 10.00 a.m. and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.172 of 2001 for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC and investigated into by PW-7 and he has conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased, conducted scene of offence panchanama and sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination and thereafter the investigation was taken up by PW-8 and he arrested the accused and after receipt of the postmortem examination filed the charge sheet against the accused. 3. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 304 Part-II r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused and all the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge. 4. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution was examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 and M.O.1 and the accused in defence examined DWs.1 and 2 in support of their contention. 5. The learned Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the material available on record found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the present appeal is filed. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ? 8. P O I N T:- The appellants’ counsel has pleaded that the wire was connected from the agricultural well of A-1 to the house of Ramchander and his brothers and not to the house of the accused and there is no material on record to establish negligence on the part of the accused in connecting the wire from the well to their houses and the prosecution could not establish the connection from the agricultural well of A-1 to their houses, as such the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 9. On behalf of the Public Prosecutor it is argued that keeping the live wire from the well of A-1 to the houses of A-1 to A-4 itself is amounts to rash and negligent act on the part of the accused and admittedly, the deceased died due to electric shock. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and the said conviction and sentence does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. The case of the prosecution is that on 02-06-2001 the deceased Pathlavath Gopal while returning to his village at about 9.00 p.m. he came in contact with live electric wire and died on the spot and according to the prosecution A-1 to A-4 have connected the said live wire from the agricultural well of A-1 to their houses. 11. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased and she has stated that her husband went into the village to gather coolies for agriculture on that day and he did not return home. She along with PW-2 and another gone in search of her husband and found her husband lying on the ground near the house of the accused and when she touched him she got a mild electric shock and the deceased was died by that time. They carried the dead body to their house and the father of the deceased lodged complaint with the Police and according to her, her husband died due to electrification by coming in contact with the live wire put up by the accused. Therefore, she has only found the deceased died in the filed by coming in contact with the live wire. 12. PW-2 who is the brother of the deceased also supported the version of PW-1 with regard to the deceased going to the village for getting labour and did not turn up and thereafter they have gone in search of him and found in lying down in the fields of Ramchander with an electric wire in his hand and his father gave a complaint to the Police. But in the cross-examination he has admitted that Ramchander and his brothers took a wire connection to their houses from the field of A-1. 13. According to the prosecution, on seeing the dead body PW-3 came to the spot and he has disconnected the wire from the electric poll at the agricultural well of A-1 but the said PW-3 turned hostile to the prosecution and he did not state about his disconnecting the wire. But he only stated that the electric wire was between house of Ramchander, Bookya and Ramulu and the field well of A-1. 14. PW-4 has also stated that the electric wire was connected to the house of A-1 from the bore well of A-1 and the deceased went to the neighbouring village to call the coolies. He along with others saw the deceased found dead. PW-3 removed the connection at the bore-well of A-1. Therefore, according to the prosecution, a live wire was connected from the bore well of A-1 to the houses of A-1 to A-4. Except PWs.1 and 4 the other witnesses have not spoken about the electric connection from the agricultural well of A-1 to the houses of A-1 to A-4. In support of their contention the prosecution has got marked the scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P-5 and rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P-6. 15. PW-7 being the Head Constable has registered a case in Crime has conducted the scene of offence panchanama and prepared rough sketch. According to him he has seized M.O.1 from the scene of offence but he did not state from which place to which place wire was connected and the same was also not mentioned in Ex.P-5 scene of offence panchanama and it was mentioned in Ex.P-5 that they enquired the said place where it was appeared that one person was lying on the ground and wire was also fell down from the place towards Western side up to the current pole situated at the agricultural bore well of A-1. It was alone mentioned that wire of 163 meters in two rows from the place to the house of the accused, but in Ex.P-6 rough sketch shows that the electric wire was from the agricultural well of A-1 to the houses of A-1 to A-4 but the said fact has not been stated in Ex.P-5. 16. More over, PW-3 who has said to be dis-connected the electric wire has not supported the version of the prosecution and according to PW-7 one Constable has removed the wire at the time of scene of offence panchanama and the said Constable was not examined to establish the fact of his removal of wire from the agricultural well of A-1 to the houses of A-1 to A-4. 17. Therefore, the prosecution could not establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the live wire was connected from the agricultural well of A-1 to the houses of A-1 to A-4. 18. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased died due to electrification. But according to the prosecution the wire came in contact with foot of the deceased and died on the spot and the said fact was not spoken by any of the witnesses who has gone to the spot. 19. The Investigating Officer PW-8 has admitted in the cross- examination that according to the charge sheet the foot of the deceased was came to contact with the wire and whereas the Doctor who has conducted the post mortem examination has found only a black and burnt wound to left index, thumb fingers and no other external injuries. Therefore, the version of the prosecution with regard to live wire coming in contact with the foot of the deceased was also not established by the prosecution. 20. More over, there is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution to establish that there was negligence on the part of the accused in putting up the said electric wire. Therefore, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and hence, I found the prosecution has filed to establish the charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, on 27-09-2004, in S.C.No.71 of 2002 is hereby set aside and all the accused are acquitted. _______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J February 25, 2011 PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2226 OF 2004 February 25, 2011