1 2025:CGHC:47738 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1031 of 2013  Prafulla Chandra Dixit, son of Late Shri B.C. Dixit, aged about 60 years, occupation – Agriculturist, R/o Narharpur, Police Station – Narharpur, District – N.B. Kanker (C.G.) ... Appellant versus  The State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Station House Officer – Station House – Narharpur, District N.B. Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (Judgment on Board) 17.09.2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.09.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (C.G. Electricity Act, 2003), Kanker (C.G.) in Special Sessions 2 Trial No.1/2010 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 304 (A) of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 1 ½ years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, plus default stipulation. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that after receiving the information about the death of Sukhlal Markam (since deceased) that, in the intervening night of 05th July, 2010, the deceased died due to electrocution after coming into contact with electric wire lying in the field of accused/appellant, meg intimation being 29/2010 was registered in Police Station – Narharpur. After summoning panch witnesses Hemant Sahu, Dayaram Markam, Latel, Tukaram Sahu etc., inquest on the body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-2 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination to Community Health Center, Narharpur, where Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh (PW-6) conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and gave his report Ex.P-9 opining the cause of death of deceased to be cardio respiratory arrest due to electric shock and the death was accidental in nature. 3. During investigation, Panchnama was prepared with regard to illegal connection of electric from the electricity pole inside the farmhouse of Hemant Sahu by the accused/appellant and blue colour electric wire by which the illegal connection was taken from the electricity pole along with earthing wire and starter box tied to a tree near the bore on which JSO Certified Company TM AMUL STAR was written, was seized in presence of the accused/appellant and recorded the statements of Hemant Sahu 3 (PW-1), Sohan Patel (PW-2) and Jairam (PW-3) & spot map of the incident was prepared and Lakhesh Gangesh (PW-8) Sub Inspector obtained information regarding the electricity connection from the Electricity Board and arrested the accused/appellant. After completing the usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 304(A) of IPC and 135 of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003 was filed against the accused/appellant before the jurisdictional Court. 4. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned trial Court framed the charges against accused/appellant under Sections 304-A of IPC and 135 of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. One defence witness Abdul Wahid Khan (DW-1) has been examined in the case. 6. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, while acquitting the accused/appellant from the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad, 4 improper, incorrect and illegal. There is no prima-facie case to connect the appellant with the crime in question. Learned counsel also submits that according to the prosecution witnesses, nobody had seen the accused/appellant taking the illegal connection of electricity from the said pole situated in the farmhouse of Hemant Sahu (PW-1). The appellant has proved that neither he had said agricultural land, nor electric bore for which he said to have taken illegal electric connection. Learned counsel also submits that admittedly there was electric pole of Electricity Board in the farmhouse of Hemant Sahu and there is every likelihood that due incessant rain on the date of incident, the electric current might have leaked and the deceased might have come into contact of electric wire and died due to electrocution. Learned counsel also submits that neither there is any technical report of the engineer or lineman with regard to illegal connection of electricity nor any expert opinion on the point that the deceased came into contact with electric wire alleged to have been laid in the field of the accused/appellant. The learned trial Court ought to have given benefit of doubt and acquitted the appellant for want of direct link between willful rash and negligence act of the accused/appellant with the incident. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment has committed error of law in considering the averments of evidence not directly implicating the accused/appellant for the death of deceased. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant has not committed the offence 5 which comes within the purview of Section 304(A) of IPC. Therefore, the appellant deserves for acquittal setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. In alternate, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident took place in the year 2010 i.e. about 15 years back, the appeal is pending since 2013, the appellant at the time of incident was aged around 63 years and by now he is aged around 78 years, he is suffering from age related ailments and is bed ridden, he has paid the fine of Rs.5,000/- and also paid Rs.10,000/- as compensation awarded by the learned trial Court, the appellant never misused the liberty of bail granted to him and no useful purpose would served in again sending him back to jail, therefore, his sentence may be set aside. 8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the learned State counsel that conviction of the accused/appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. Learned State counsel supported the submission of appellant that the appellant is now aged about 78 years, suffering from age related ailments and is bed ridden & has also filed photographs in this regard. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 304(A) of IPC and 135 of the electricity Act, 2003, and after appreciation of oral and 6 documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused/appellant from the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, convicted him under Section 304(A) of IPC and sentenced as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 11. Hemant Sahu (PW-1) has stated that the agricultural land of accused/appellant is adjacent to his farmhouse, in which he had got a bore done in his field. He has also stated that accused/appellant has taken electricity connection in his bore by fixing a wooden pole inside his farmhouse with the help of wooden frame. This witness has also stated that wire from which the accused/appellant had taken connection was lying in the ground/field and the deceased died after coming into contact with the wire which was lying on the ground/field of the accused/appellant. 12. Sohan Ram Patel (PW-2) has stated that he saw the body of deceased Sukhlal lying in the field of accused/appellant and he died due to electrocution. 13. Jairam (PW-3) is son of deceased Sukhlal. He has also supported the evidence of Hemant Sahu (PW-1) and stated that the field of accused/appellant was adjacent to the farmhouse of Hemant Sahu (PW-1), in which the accused/appellant got a bore done and had taken electricity connection from the farmhouse’s electricity pole by erecting wooden poles in his field and his father Sukhlal died after being electrocuted by the electricity connection taken by the accused/appellant. 7 14. Dhanesh Koushik (PW-4), Gendlal Satnami (PW-5), Amrutlal Mandavi (PW-7) and Lakhesh Gangesh (PW-8) have also supported the case of the prosecution. 15. Chandrashekhar Dhruv (PW-9) is the Inspector. He has stated that on the information of accused/appellant, Mohan Singh Kunjam, Hemant Sahu, Jairam Markam that the accused/appellant had taken temporary connection for the bore pump from the pole of farmhouse of Hemant Sahu where deceased worked as watchman and while going to his field, deceased Sukhram came in contact with a electric wire and died, he registered the merg intimation being 29/2010 vide Ex.P-18. 16. Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh (PW-6) is the autopsy surgeon who conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased and gave his report vide Ex.P-9 opining the cause of death of deceased to be cardio respiratory arrest due to electric shock and the death was accidental in nature. 17. From the aforesaid testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is proved that the agricultural land of accused/appellant was adjacent to the farmhouse of Hemant Sahu (PW-1) where deceased was working as watchman and the accused/appellant had got a bore done in his field and to run the bore, the accused/appellant had taken electricity connection from the farmhouse of Hemant Sahu (PW-1) by fixing a wooden pole, and wire from which the accused/appellant had taken connection was lying in the ground/field and the deceased died after coming into 8 contact with the said wire which was lying on the ground/field. The defence has cross-examined the these witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8) at length but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross-examination to discredit their testimonies especially to the fact that deceased Sukhlal did not die after being electrocuted by the electricity connection taken by the accused/appellant in his field. 18. The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and while acquitting the accused/appellant from the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, rightly convicted him under Section 304(A) of IPC. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned. 19. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident had taken place in the year 2010, this appeal is pending since 2013, the appellant at the time of incident was aged around 63 years and by now he is aged around 78 years, he is suffering from age related ailments and is bed ridden, which has been admitted by the learned State counsel and Section 304-A of IPC awards punishment for imprisonment for terms which may extend to 02 years or with fine or with both. 20. 20. The accused/appellant has paid the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- and has also deposited compensation of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the learned trial Court, the appellant is facing lis since 15 years and he is suffering from age related ailments and is bed ridden, as such, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, 9 the imprisonment of 1 ½ years as awarded by the learned trial Court is now set aside but the fine and compensation clause shall remain intact with default stipulation. 21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 304(A) of the IPC, his sentence thereunder is set aside. 22. The appellant is on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (new section 481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 23. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 24. Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE