High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.09.10 10:26:25 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR Criminal Revision No. 457 of 2011 Kumari Bai, widow of Dhanuk Satnami, aged about 40 years, resident of Singhanpuri, Police Station Kawardha, District – Kabirdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh, versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh, through the District – Magistrate, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham (Kawardha). ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Kaif Ali Rizvi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 08/09/2025 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.26/2010 by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh, arising out of the judgment dated 02.07.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.678/2005 convicting the present applicant Kumari Bai and co-accused Darbari Lal for the offence under Section 304-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6-6 months each. The learned Appellate Court acquitted the co- 2 accused Darbari Lal of the charge framed against him, however, maintained the conviction and sentence of the present applicant. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that, the complainant Itwari has lodged a report in the police station Pipariya to the effect that on 02.07.2005, her father Najru had gone to pluck the branches of Babool Tree and while plucking the branches, he came into contact with the line of live electric wires, which the applicant/accused had illegally drawn from the electric pole to her house and died due to electrocution. On the basis of the said report, the offence was registered against the applicant and co-accused Darbari Lal under Section 304-A/34 of IPC. 3. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/5 and the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. The accused/applicant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 4. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court of learned CJM, Kabirdham vide judgment dated 02.07.2010, convicted the applicant and co-accused Darbari Lal under Section 304- A/34 of the IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. However, the learned Appellate Court, acquitted the co- accused Darbari Lal of the charge levelled against him but maintained the conviction and sentence imposed upon the present applicant – Kumari Bai. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Court of CJM as well as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence 3 available on record, were not justified in convicting and sentencing the present applicant for the aforesaid offence. He further submits that the alleged incident occurred on 02.07.2005 but the FIR (Ex.P/11) has been lodged on 07.07.2005 i.e. after a gap of five days. He further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. This apart, the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the incident took place due to negligence of the deceased himself as he climbed on the tree to pluck the branches of Babool tree and therefore, the applicant cannot be convicted with an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. He further submits that the co- accused Darbari Lal has already been acquitted by the learned Appellate Court and that as per the evidence of Banshi (PW-05), it appears that the applicant Kumari Bai has not installed any illegal connection, though he (Banshi) has stated that the illegal connection was installed by one Darbari Lal, who has already been acquitted by the learned Appellate Court. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that applicant be acquitted of the charges leveled against her. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel, while supporting the impugned judgment, submits that the Court of CJM as well as the Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. He further submits that no appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment wherein the co-accused Darbari Lal was acquitted. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 4 8. In order to deal with the contentions made by learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to discuss the evidence available on record. Pawan (PW-01) who is the grandson of the deceased, in his Court statement has stated that his grandfather – Nazru was lying dead in the field under ‘babool’ tree. He further stated that the death of his grandfather occurred due to electrocution and the accused Kumari Bai and co-accused Darbari had taken the said electric connection. However, this witness in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not seen the accused persons taking electric connections from the electric pole. He further admitted that he did not know when the said electric connection was taken by the accused persons. 9. Itwari (PW-02) who is the son of the deceased, has stated that when he reached at the place of incident, he saw his father had died by sticking to the naked electric wire and then he along with other persons, separated the said electric wire from the body. This witness in his cross-examination has however, admitted that Danuk Satnami, who was ex-husband of the applicant Kumari Bai, had died before the incident. Further, the house where Kumari Bai used to live, belonged to the Danuk Satnami. Further, admitted that prior to the death of Dhanuk Satnami, the electric wire was connected but, thereafter, the said connected was removed. Then again, the said connection was installed in the house of the Kumari Bai, but he did not know who installed the said connection. He further admitted that one end of the said wire was attached to the electric pole and the other end was lying in the house of one Siranjaru. 10. Banshi (PW-05) who is the neighbour of the accused person, in his Court testimony has stated that Darbari has taken direct electric connection in 5 his house on which the deceased Najru opposed and told him to remove the said connection but he did not do so. The sarpanch of the village has also told Darbari to remove the said electric connection but he did not do so. This apart, the said electric connection was taken by Darbari to the house of Kumari Bai. This witness in cross-examination, however, admitted that he had not seen the accused Kumari Bai or Darbari taking the said electric connection. Furthermore, the co-accused Darbai has already been acquitted by the learned Appellate Court. 11.Another prosecution witness Leelagar Das (PW-06) who has also gone to the police station along with other persons, has admitted that he has not seen the alleged incident. Further, admitted that Darbari used to reside with his family in Kawardha. He further admitted that he has not seen the accused Kumari Bai taking the electric connection. Further, the prosecution has also failed to prove that any electric wire, switch board or electrical devices were found from the applicant Kumari Bai. It is pertinent to mention here that the co-accused Darbari Lal has already been acquitted by the learned Appellate Court. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the statements of Banshi (PW-05) and the statements of other prosecution witnesses, the prosecution case appears to be suspicious and is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged electric connection was installed by the applicant Kumari Bai. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to discharge its duty by adducing cogent and clinching evidence to show the complicity of the present applicant in the crime in question. 6 12.For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court were totally unjustified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offence. 13.Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the Court of CJM, Kabirdham dated 02.07.2010 and that of Appellate Court dated 08.08.2011 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant is acquitted of the charge levelled against her by extending her the benefit
Decision
of doubt. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. 14.Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, her bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash