1 2025:CGHC:59074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2546 of 2025 Chinta Ram Verma S/o Milan Ram Verma Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Village- Dokla, Police Station Charama, District- Kanker (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Assistant Engineer (Electricity Security) And Assistant Electricity Inspector State Of Chhattisgarh Sub Division Dhamtari Infront Of Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, Rudri Road, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Binu Sharma Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 05/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2 2. By the impugned judgment and conviction dated 11.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act) Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) passed in Special Criminal Case (Electricity Act) No. 03/2021, the appellant stands convicted as under: Conviction Sentence U/s 61(2)(i) of Central Electricity Authority Regulations-2010 r/w Section 146 of Electricity Act, 2003 S.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of fine additional S.I. for 21 days. 3. Brief facts of the case leading to disposal of this appeal are ttha the appellant was repairing his house and the contract was given to Mason Hari Shankar Nag and Harishankar along with his labour Sanjay Kumar Bisen performed the repairing work on 17- 06-2019 at the house of appellant. The 11 KV line was going from the above the house of appellant and on 18-06-2019 at about 10.00 AM, when Harishankar Nag and Sanjay Bisen along with appellant were doing the work at that time, the appellant called Devesh Kumar Sahu, who resides in the same locality. Since the distance of house from the 11 KV Nagari Town Feeder is near about 4.5 feet on account of which, Devesh Kumar Sahu came into the contact and fell down from the roof of appellant and he was immediately taken to the Hospital, where he was declared dead by the doctor. After receiving the information, Sub Engineer i.e. Shakhar Chand Dewangan reached to the place of incident and prepared the enquiry report and in which it was found that 3 before doing the work of repairing, no permission was sought from the Electricity Department and no application was given by the appellant to disconnect the current at the time of repairing of the house and since the distance between the line and house is nearby 3.7 Meter, which is Violation of Section 61 (2) (i) of provision of Central Electricity Authority Regulations-2010. 4. So as to prove the case, total 06 witnesses were examined by the complainant and in defence the appellant not examined any defense witness. 5. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence and material on record, convicted the appellant particular of which given above in the cause title vide its impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11-11-2025, hence this appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2025 is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be set-aside. The learned trial court has failed to adduce the evidence and documents available on record. There is no documents collected by the officers of the Electricity Department to demonstrate this fact that the place of incident belongs to the appellant as no map or documents of house was produced before the learned trial court. He further submits that the fine amount has already been paid. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant at 4 present is aged about 46 years and is facing criminal trial since 2021 and around 4 years have elapsed and the appellant was on bail during trial and was never in jail. Also, the appellant has deposited the fine amount of Rs. 50,000/-. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellants Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be set-aside. 8. Learned State Counsel objected the prayer stating that in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court all incriminating circumstances are against the accused/applicant which connects him with the crime and chain of circumstances are fully linked and completed with each other. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. On appreciation of the evidence on record, it has been conclusively proved that on 18.06.2019, the accused had undertaken construction activity by installing a pipe for discharge of roof water in his previously constructed house situated at village Budharwapara, Nagari, District Dhamtari. The evidence clearly establishes that an 11 K.V. overhead electric line emanating from 33/11 K.V. sub-station, Nagari, was passing over the roof of the said house at a vertical clearance of only 4.5 feet. 11. As per Regulation 61 of the Central Electricity Authority Regulations, 2010, the minimum prescribed vertical clearance from an 11 K.V. overhead line to any building or construction is 3.7 meters (approximately 12.13 feet). The admitted distance of 4.5 5 feet is grossly below the statutory requirement and constitutes a clear violation of Regulation 61. 12. It has further been proved beyond reasonable doubt that due to this violation, the deceased Dinesh Kumar Sahu came in contact with the said live electric line, resulting in electrocution and his death. The causal link between the illegal construction activity and the fatal incident stands firmly established by the prosecution evidence. 13. The Trial Court has correctly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and has rightly concluded that the accused committed breach of Regulation 61(2)(i) of the Central Electricity Authority Regulations, 2010, which is punishable under Section 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law and do not suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity. 14. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2021 and there- after more than 4 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the fact that the fine amount has already been deposited, there is no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence of S.I. for 3 months imposed upon the appellant under Section 61(2)(i) of Electricity Authority Regulations-2010 r/w Section 146 of Electricity Act, 2003 is hereby 6 set-aside. However, fine imposed by trial Court is modified from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-. Since, the appellant has already deposited the fine of Rs. 50,000/-, therefore the appellant is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. Rs. 10,000/- within a period of 60 days from today. 15. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly-allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima