High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.03.28 16:41:35 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR CRR No. 497 of 2011 Order Reserved on 25.03.2025 Order Delivered on 28.03.2025 • Kamal Narayan, S/o Baisakhu Ram Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Bhainsatara, Tehsil Rajim, P.S. Rajim, Distt. Raipur C.G. --- Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. ---Non-applicant CRR No. 532 of 2011 • Pappu @ Daneshwar, S/o Manharan Sahu Sukhidas, aged about 21 years, R/o Village Bhaisatara, Tehsil Rajim, District Raipur, C.G. ---Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station In-charge, Police Station Rajim, District Raipur, C.G. --- Non-applicant CRR No. 566 of 2011 • Girdhari, S/o Jhudawan Sahu, aged about 39 years, R/o Village Bhainsatara, Tehsil Rajim, P.S. Rajim, District Raipur, C.G. Versus ---Applicant • State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. ---Non-applicant
Legal Reasoning
For Respective Applicants : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Mr. C.R. Sahu and Ms. Khusbhu Sahu, Advocates. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Order 1. Since all the above captioned revisions arise of the same incident that took place on 14.01.2008, therefore, they are being heard together and
Decision
disposed of by this common order. 2. The present applicants have preferred these criminal revisions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Raipur, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.48/2011, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while affirming the judgment dated 04.06.2011 passed in Criminal Case No.153/2008 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, C.G, convicting the applicants under Section 304-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.300/-, in default thereof, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.01.2008, complainant- Netram Sahu lodged Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-4) stating therein that one Kamal Sahu informed him over telephone that present applicants, from the field of Mahesh Sahu, pulled the electric wire from pole to the field of Girdhari Sahu and on account of such pulling, the electric wire touched the fencing installed in the field of Mahesh Sahu and on the fateful day, deceased- Naveen Yadav, while passing the field of Mahesh Sahu, came in contact with the fencing and died on account of electrocution. Based on the said report, FIR Ex.P-10 was registered against the present applicants. Thereafter, merg intimation (Ex.P-5) was recorded and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-2 3 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination where Dr. A.K. Humne (PW-5) examined the dead body and gave his report Ex.P-8 opining that deceased died of electrocution. 4. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-6. From the spot, old electric wires were seized vide Ex.P-3 and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused/applicants were taken into custody vide Exs.P-14 to P-16. 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the present applicants before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, C.G. The accused persons / applicants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 6. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court of learned JMFC and the Appellate Court, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in the Para No. 1 of this order. Hence, these revisions. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, were not justified in convicting and sentencing the applicants for the aforesaid offence. They would further submit that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of PW-1 Rukhmani and her husband- Channulal (PW-2) and their statements do not corroborate with each other. They would also submit that other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case and that prosecution has also not examined Mahesh Sahu in whose field the fencing was installed and deceased came in contact with that fencing and died due to electrocution. They 4 would also submit that PW-14 M.K. Shukla, Junior Engineer, CSEB has submitted its report vide Exs.P-19 & P-20 on the next date of incident which was based on the information sought by him from the accused-Girdhari and Devlal Sahu, but the said Devlal Sahu has not been examined by the prosecution. They would also submit that as per Ex.P-3 seizure memo, 200-250 feet electric wires were seized from the place of incident, but from where such electric wires have been seized has not been specifically described in the seizure memo and there is no evidence to show that accused-Girdhari Sahu had taken illegal electric connection for digging the bore-well and that the prosecution has also failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicants that applicants be acquitted of the charge leveled against them. 8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State, while supporting the impugned judgments, submits that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 10. PW-3 Netram Sahu/complainant has stated that one Kamal Sahu informed him over telephone that in the field of Channu, one person, who belongs to Odisha, was digging the bore-well and died due to electrocution. Thereafter, he went to the spot and saw a dead body lying near the field of Munna Dhruv. He has further stated that he admitted his signatures over the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-4), but denied the contents with 5 respect to alleged incident and how the police wrote about the incident is not known to him. He has further deposed that he has only stated that one person, who belongs to Odisha, was lying dead and except this, he did not state anything to the police. He also admitted that he did not know as to who laid the electric wire. This apart, prosecution has also not examined Kamal Sahu who allegedly informed about the incident to this witness (PW-3 Netram Sahu), making the prosecution case doubtful. Moreover, PW-1 Rukhmani has also stated that later on, she came to know that the present applicants had laid an electric wire for digging the bore-well in their field, due to which, the electric wire touched the fencing installed in the field of Mahesh where deceased- Naveen came in contact and died of electrocution. Furthermore, PW-2 Channulal Sahu, has stated that after the incident, he went to the spot and asked about the laying of electric connection, then accused- Girdhari told him that he did not know anything. Then, he asked his wife PW-1 Rukhmani whereupon she informed him that the accused persons themselves laid the electric wire, but PW-1 Rukhmani has not stated in her statement that she informed about the incident to her husband PW-2 Channulal. He also admitted that at the time of incident, he was not present on the spot and further admitted that there were many bore-well connections in and around the field of Mahesh. Thus, from perusal of above evidence, it appears that PW-1 Rukhmani is a hearsay witness and her evidence does not corroborate with the statement of her husband- Channulal Sahu (PW-2). Besides, prosecution witnesses namely PW-7 Parsuram, PW-8 Narad Ram, PW-10 Kirtanlal Sahu, PW-11 Beer Singh and PW-12 Girdhari Yadav have turned hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. 6 Moreover, PW-13 Ugeram, father of the deceased, who was also working at time of incident, has also not stated about his son's death (deceased) due to electrocution and that, had any alleged illegal connection been taken by the accused-Girdhari from the field of Mahesh, then PW-13 Ugeram certainly would have informed about the same in his statement, but he did not say anything. This apart, prosecution has also not examined Mahesh Sahu in whose field the fencing was installed and deceased came in contact with that fencing and died due to electrocution. Furthermore, PW-14 M.K. Shukla, Junior Engineer, CSEB has stated that he has submitted its report vide Exs.P- 19 & P-20 on the next date of incident which was based on the information sought by him from the accused-Girdhari and Devlal Sahu, but the said Devlal Sahu has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. This witness (PW-14) also admitted that in Exs.P-19 & Ex.P-20, there was no mention with respect to seizure of wire and further admitted that loose fencing wire lying on the field was of Mahesh Sahu and that electric connection which was taken by Mahesh Sahu was found to be valid. He also admitted that he did not seize any pump from the spot. That apart, PW-6 V.S. Thakur, Investigating Officer, has stated that on 14.01.2008, from the spot, he had seized 200-250 feet wire and prepared the seizure memo vide Ex.P-3, but from which place such electric wires have been seized by him (PW-16) has not been specifically described in the seizure memo (Ex.P-3) nor panchanama or any document was prepared in this regard. As against this, PW-14 M.K. Shukla has stated that he has also seized electric wire from the spot and kept the same in his Office, but as per seizure memo (Ex.P-3), alleged electric wire has already been seized by PW-16 V.S. 7 Thakur on 14.01.2008 and if that be so, which type of electric wire, he (PW-14) has seized on the fateful day, has not been mentioned in his report (Exs.P-19 & P-20), also making the seizure proceedings of alleged electric wire doubtful. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the 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 applicants in the crime in question. 11. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the applicants are 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 applicants for the aforesaid offence. 12. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the Court of JMFC dated 04.06.2011 and that of Appellate Court dated 19.08.2011 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicants are acquitted of the charge under Section 304-A read with 34 of IPC by extending them the benefit of doubt. 13. In the result, all the criminal revisions are allowed. 14. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their 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. Akhilesh Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE