APHC010257442010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 36/2010 Between: 1. KULLE CHINNA SIDDAPPA,, S/O MALLAIAH, AGRICULTURE R/O GAGGATUR VILLAGE, PANYAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow this revision case and set-aside the conviction and sentence Ordered in Crl.A.No.22/2009, dated 07.01.10 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyala, whereby the conviction of the accused in C.C.No.583/2005, dated 13.02.09 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandyala, was confirmed. IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 50 OF 2010 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner herein on bail by suspending the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.22/2009, dated 07.01.10 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyala, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava Counsel for the Respondent: 1. Sri Panini Somayaji Assistant Public Prosecutor -2- CRL.R.C. No.36 of 2010 The Court made the following order: 1. Instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the judgment dt.07.01.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2009 by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellate court’) confirming and partly modifying the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’) in C.C. No.583 of 2005, dt.13.02.2009, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’). 2. PROSECUTION CASE, IN BRIEF, AS FOLLOWS: 2.1. P.W.1 and the accused are having cultivable lands at Gaggatur Village, and their lands are adjacent to each other. The accused had obtained an electricity service connection for his bore well and the said electricity connection through wire was running through the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.3 at a height of about four to five feet from the ground level. It is further alleged that the accused used galvanized iron wire as a support to the service wire and did not take any precautions, such as covering the joints with tape or providing proper insulation. 2.2. On 16.07.2005, at about 1.00 p.m., the deceased, the son of P.W.1, was ploughing the land with a guntaka. When the guntaka reached the electrical wires, it caught in the wires. The deceased picked up a small twig and tried to remove the wires from the guntaka. In that process, the -3- CRL.R.C. No.36 of 2010 live wire fell on his left hand. As the joints of the wires were not covered with insulation or tape, electricity passed through the supporting iron wire, as a result of which the deceased received an electric shock and died on the spot. P.Ws.3 and 4, who were working in the adjoining fields, rushed to the spot and noticed the deceased lying there. They informed P.W.1 about the incident. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police. The police conducted scene observation report, including inquest over the dead body, and the deceased was subjected to post-mortem examination. The Medical Officer opined that the deceased died due to electric shock. 2.3. A charge was, accordingly, framed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. During trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 2.4. After hearing both parties, considering the material on record, learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.8,000/- was directed to be paid to P.W.1 as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. 2.5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2009 before learned -4- CRL.R.C. No.36 of 2010 appellate court. Upon consideration of the matter, learned appellate court confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence by reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months, while maintaining the fine amount. Hence, the present criminal revision case. 3. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court as well as learned appellate court failed to appreciate the entire facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective. 3.2. It is submitted that evidence on record would show that the electrical wire came into contact with the guntaka while the deceased was ploughing the land. The deceased picked up a small twig and tried to remove the wire from the guntaka, but the wire fell on his left hand, resulting to electrocution and death. 3.3. He further submits that the petitioner had obtained an electricity service connection from the electricity department and that he was not an unauthorized consumer. Though death of the deceased due to electrocution is not disputed, the petitioner cannot, for that reason alone, be found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. 3.4. Learned counsel further submits that P.W.6, the Assistant Engineer, deposed before the Court regarding the electricity service connection obtained by the petitioner for his bore well. It is also submitted that there was no complaint from any of the prosecution witnesses regarding the height at which the electrical wire was running about four to five feet from -5- CRL.R.C. No.36 of 2010 the ground level. He further submits that the death of the deceased was not the direct result of any rash or negligent act on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by learned trial court and modified by learned appellate court are liable to be set aside. 3.5. It is further submitted that the incident occurred in the year 2005 and more than twenty years have elapsed thereafter. Thus, the order of conviction may be converted to fine. 4. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPEARING FOR THE STATE: 4.1. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has successfully bring home the charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. He submits that the factum of death of the deceased due to electrocution is not in dispute. It has further been established through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the petitioner has drawn the electrical wire from an electric pole to his bore well at a height of about four to five feet from the ground level. 4.2. It is further argued that the said PVC electrical wire had joints and that the petitioner had not taken proper care to insulate or cover the said joints. The GI supporting wire was also connected with the PVC wire, as a result of which electricity passed through the GI wire. The petitioner was well aware about the fact that PVC wire had joints and it was also connected with GI wire such act itself is a rash and negligent. It is further -6- CRL.R.C. No.36 of 2010 submitted that there are cultivable lands of other prosecution witnesses were situated in the vicinity and that the electrical wire was running at a low height through the agricultural fields, thereby creating a hazardous condition and endangering human life. 4.3. He further submits that learned trial court as well as learned appellate court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence and material on record, correctly recorded the conviction against the petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment passed by learned trial court and learned appellate court. 6. OBSERVATIONS OF THIS COURT: 6.1. It appears that the factum of the occurrence is not in dispute. The deceased died due to electrocution while attending cultivation work. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had obtained an electricity service connection from an electric pole to his bore well and that the said electrical wire was running through the lands of PWs.1 and 3 at a height of about four to five feet from the ground level. It is also an admitted fact that the electrical connection from the electric pole to the bore well was through a PVC wire and that, at certain places, the said wire had joints. 6.2. The evidence of P.W.9 as well as P.W.6 reveals that there is a GI wire attached to the PVC wire. The said PVC wire has some joints. Since there was no insulation to the joints of the PVC wire, the electricity passed -7- CRL.R.C. No.36 of 2010 even to the galavanized iron wire. The deceased came into contact with the said galvanized iron wire and died due to electric shock. 6.3. Considering the entire facts, it appears that the petitioner was granted a licence from the electricity department to draw a line. Hence, he was not an unauthorised electricity connection. In this case it is proved that PVC wire was drawn from the electrical pole to the bore well of the petitioner. The rash and negligent act as per the prosecution is that the petitioner has not taken proper precautions to insulate the joints of the PVC wire and that the GI wire was attached to the PVC wire, through which electricity passed. 6.4. Let me consider whether the aforesaid act on the part of the petitioner, in drawing the electricity line from the electrical pole to the bore well, amounts to a rash and negligent act, as a result of which the death of the deceased was caused. 6.5. It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that they had earlier informed the petitioner not to draw the electrical wire at such a low height and requested him to raise the height of the wire. However, the petitioner did not paid heed their request. The evidence further shows that there was no complaint made to the electricity department or to the police regarding the electrical line being drawn at such a low height prior to the incident. 6.6. On thorough observation of the alleged incident, it appears that, though the petitioner had knowledge of lying wire in low height over the fields of P.Ws.1 and 3, but he is solely and directly responsible, even if, deceased -8- CRL.R.C. No.36 of 2010 also aware about the live wire and by using a twig, consciously he tried to release guntaka from the live wire, but on that process got himself electrocuted, which implies some negligence of the deceased. 6.7. However, from the evidence available on record, it appears that the petitioner had drawn the electrical wire from the electric pole to his bore well through PVC wire having joints. There was no insulation to the joints of the PVC wire. Consequently, electricity passed through the GI wire attached to the PVC wire. The petitioner had allowed the said electrical line to run over the lands of P.Ws.1 and 3. The petitioner was also aware that the said lands were cultivable lands. If any person entered the said lands for cultivation purpose, there is a chance of electrocution. 6.8. Learned trial court and learned appellate court has also decided these issues categorically. Learned trial court, in its thorough discussion in respect of alleged offence committed by the petitioner, considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly P.Ws.1 to 4 and 7 and also taken note of the evidence of P.W.6, and arrived at the conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. had been successfully established against the petitioner. Learned appellate court also further scanned the evidence on record and noted the argument raised by the defence and is of the view that rash and negligent act of the petitioner has been successfully proved. 6.9. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, since there is concurrent finding by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court, -9- CRL.R.C. No.36 of 2010 I find no justification to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by learned trial court and confirmed by learned appellate court. 6.10. However, the incident happened in the year 2005. Today we are in the year 2026. More than twenty years have already been elapsed. At this juncture, I am of the considered view that the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner by learned appellate court requires to be modified to the period of already undergone by him during inquiry, investigation, trial and appeal. The fine amount shall remain intact. 6.11. Under the above observation, instant criminal revision is disposed of. 6.12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.18.09.2026 BV