1 2025:CGHC:31347 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 182 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (Cg) ... Appellant versus 1 - Sushil Korwa S/o Dhaneshwar Korwa Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Kapatbahri, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (Cg) 2 - Sanjay Korwa S/o Sukhlal Korwa Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kapatbahri, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (Cg) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Arvind Dubey, GA and Ms. Anuradha jain, PL For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Mishra and Mr. Vivek Sahu, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 08/07/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.12.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.07.09 16:57:17 +0530 2 Ambikapur, Sarguja in Special Electricity Case No.03/2019, whereby the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 304-A, 429/34 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.08.2019 at about 6 am at Village Darragoda Maheshpur, Police Station Sitapur, the accused persons in a negligent manner hooked the L.T. Electric Line to their fields and the deceased- Shobhit Singh and his buffalo came into contact with the live electric wire and both died on the spot. Brother of Shobhit Singh- Patiram (PW-1), has lodged an FIR at Police Station Sitapur. Based on such information, merg intimation (Ex-P/1) was recorded. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex-P/3. From the spot, an electric wire was seized vide Ex-P/4. After giving notices to the witnesses, death inquest report was prepared vide Ex-P/7. Memorandum statements of the respondents were recorded vide Ex-P/17 & Ex-P/18 and from their possession Tullu pump and a bundle of electric wire were seized vide Ex-P/15 & Ex-P16 respectively. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Post-Mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. S.N. Paikra (PW-17) vide Ex-P/34, who has opined that death of the deceased was due to severe shock, asphyxia and cardiac arrest which were caused by direct contact of the body with electric current. Post-Mortem of the buffalo was also conducted by the veterinary doctor Dr. Anil Chouhan (PW-16) vide Ex-P/31, who has also opined that the buffalo has died due to contact with electric current. During investigation, the Junior Engineer also made a complaint vide Ex-P/23 for illegal hooking and theft of 3 electricity. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. During trial, the respondents/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. The respondents/accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case and have not adduced any defence evidence. 4. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondents/accused. Hence this Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and prays to allow the Appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons would support the impugned judgment, which is well merited and does not call for any interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Indisputably, in the instant case, the deceased- Shobhit Singh, died due to electrocution, which has also been proved by Dr. S.N Paikra (PW-17) vide his Post-Mortem report (Ex-P/34) and the buffalo also died in the said incident, which was proved by Dr. Anil Chouhan (PW-16) vide Ex- P/31. The material question is as to whether the respondents/accused persons are the authors of the crime, as they have illegally hooked the electricity wire in a negligent manner. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence of brother of the deceased, Patiram (PW-1), his wife- 4 Surajmani (PW-6) and other witnesses, Akbar Singh (PW-2), Muneshwar (PW-3), Shivram Kushwaha (PW-4), Sukrit Das (PW-5), Labdu Das (PW-7) and Yashoda Singh (PW-8), found that they had not stated anything adverse against the accused persons that they had illegally hooked the wire in which the deceased and his buffalo came into contact. Jagdish (PW-9) deposed that later on he received the information that the accused persons for operating their pump hooked the electricity wire, but he failed to state as to from whom he had got such knowledge and therefore, this witness is a hearsay witness. Similarly, Idrish Hasan (PW- 10) and Tilak Singh (PW-11) are also unable to state as to who has taken the wire from the electricity line. 9. The independent witness of the memorandum and seizure, Tilak Singh (PW-11) has not supported the case of the prosecution and categorically deposed that when the proceeding was carried out, the accused persons were not present and the other witness, Jugeshwar Singh was not examined by the prosecution. So the memorandum and seizure have also not been proved in accordance with law. 10.In the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the law has been reiterated that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; and that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible. 5 11.From scanning of the evidence, this Court does not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and the view taken by the trial Court is possible one. 12.Resultantly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Priyanka Judge