Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:25025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 995 of 2007 Fulchand, S/o Ramprasad Kol, aged about 35 years, R/o Tendumuda, Police Station : Gaurela, District Bilaspur (C.G.). versus ... Appellant The State of Chhattisgarh Through : The District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Respondent/State (Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey) ( Judgment on Board) 17.06.2025 1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentenced dated 24.08.2007 passed in Session Trial No. 348/2006 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) has convicted the appellant under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 02 years with fine of Rs.200/-, with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that some portion of kitchen-garden of Patkunwar (since deceased) was adjacent to the house of accused/appellant, & the deceased and her husband Gahnu used to 2 / 6 come to kitchen-garden for ploughing, sowing and other works. The accused/appellant had taken electricity through a bare (G.I.) wire through the bushes to his house, which was objected by Gahnu (PW-4) saying that they used to come and go through the path and remove the electric wire, but the accused/appellant used to remove the wire during day time and used to connect the same to the pole in the evening. On 07.07.2006 at evening, the deceased went to the kitchen-garden and was weeding (funkbZ). When deceased Patkunwar did not return for long time, her husband Gahnu (PW-4) told his daughter Sunita to go to the kitchen-garden and call her. When Sunita went to kitchen-garden, she saw that her mother Patkunwar was lying in the fence between her and the accused/appellant’s garden & died due to electric shock after getting stuck in the wire laid by the accused/appellant, the information of which was given to Gahnu (PW-4) by her daughter Sunita (PW-5). Thereafter, Gahnu (PW-4) gave the information to Police Station – Gourela, on the basis of which, meg intimation being No. 50/2006 was recorded. After investigation of the said incident, FIR (Ex.P-5) under Crime No.147/2006 for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC was registered against the accused/appellant. Inquest on the body of deceased was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination to Primary Health Center, Gourela vide Ex.P-9, where Dr. Kamal Kumar Soni (PW-7) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased and gave his report under Ex.P-4 noticing following injuries :- 1. Lacerated wound was present in the size of 1cm x 1cm x 1cm on palmar aspect of all the finger of right hand. 2. Lacerated wound present in left forearm below joint and elbow joint in the size of 7 cm x 1cm x 1 cm. 3 / 6 3. Two rounded dark brown in the size of 0.5 radius were present over right side of chest and a scratch mark at left outer angle of eye in the size of 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm was present. 4. On all injuries clotted blood was present and no other injury present on the body. 5. The injuries were antemortem in nature which shows entry and exist wound of electric discharge in body. The Autopsy Surgeon opined the cause of death of deceased due to cardiac arrest because of electric current (discharge) travel in body from arm to arm, and the death was accidental in nature. 3. Spot map was prepared by patwari. 12 hands long wire with 100 watt bulb holder was seized from the accused/appellant. The statement of the witnesses were recorded and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Court at Pendra Road, Bilaspur. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court framed the charge against accused/appellant under Section 304 IPC. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the trial Court is bad in law, illegal and perverse. The learned trial Court did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and 4 / 6 without any reliable evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that there is no eye-witness to the incident and the conviction is based on evidence of Gahnu (PW- 4) and Sunita (PW-5), husband and daughter of deceased, who are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be made basis for convicting the accused/appellant unless corroborated by the independent witnesses. Learned counsel also submits that Ram Milan (PW-1) and Maniram (PW-2) are the hearsay witnesses and their evidence also cannot be made basis for convicting the accused/appellant unless being corroborated by the substantive piece of evidence. It has been also submitted that it is evident from the statement of PW-4 and PW-5 that they have not stated against the accused/appellant and have admitted this fact that they have no knowledge that who had pulled bare electric wire from kitchen-garden. The learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellant without there
Decision
being any material on record. Thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the accused/appellant deserve to be acquitted. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellant. The appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that it has framed charge under Section 304 of IPC against the accused/appellant and 5 / 6 after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellant under Section 304-A of the IPC. 10. Ram Milan (PW-1), Mani Ram (PW-2) and Sewak Ram (PW-3) are the hearsay witnesses and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The prosecution cross-examined them but they denied all suggestions of prosecution in their cross- examination. 11. Gahnu (PW-4) and Sunita (PW-5) are the husband and daughter of deceased. They have stated that the deceased died due to electrocution. PW-4 in his examination-in-chief has stated that prior to 8-10 days of the incident, he had asked the accused/appellant to raise the hight of GI wire but he did not. He did not know when the wire was installed but in para 4 of his cross-examination, he admitted that the house of Dulichand, Dhaniram, Motilal and Lutan Prasad are situated near the house of accused/appellant and they are all from the same house but he cannot tell as to who had pulled the electric wire. Sunita (PW-5), in her cross-examination, has also admitted that she did not see that who pulled the electric wire. She has admitted that the electric wire to her and the accused/appellant’s house has come from same pole & Motilal, Lotan Prasad, Dulichand and Dhaniram have also pulled the electric wire from the same pole. 12. From the postmortem report (Ex.P-4), it is established that the death of deceased was accidental. It transpires from the evidence of PW-1, PW- 2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 that they have not seen the accused/appellant while pulling the open electric GI wire from kitchen- garden and even no one has uttered specific against the accused/appellant that due to his negligent act, the deceased died. The 6 / 6 evidence of these witnesses do not inspire much confidence of this Court and not trustworthy so as to hold the accused/appellant guilty for commission of offence. The learned trial Court utterly failed to prove this fact that the electric GI wire was pulled by the accused/appellant and the deceased died due to negligent act of the accused/appellant. 13. On the basis of aforesaid analysis of the evidence and discussion, I am of the view that the finding of the learned trial Court convicting the present appellant under Sections 304-A is not based on proper appreciation of evidence and the benefit of doubt must be credited to the appellant and he deserve to be acquitted of the charge leveled against him. 14. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Sections 304-A of IPC by extending him benefit of doubt. The fine amount deposited by the accused/appellant, if any, be refunded to the accused/appellant after due verification. 15. The appellant is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS. 16. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Digitally signed pekde by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE