MAN SINGH MARKAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of the case in short are that 22.03.2006 at about 7.00 AM, one Loknath S/o. Kunwar Singh who was working with the appellants in their filed had come in contact with a electricity wire which was taken illegally by the appellants for irrigation purposes. As a result of which Loknath got electrocuted and died on the spot. On the basis of merg intimation (Ex.P-12), the Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.P-1) to the Panchas and prepared panchanama (Ex.P-2) on the body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination to Primary Health Center Belargaon Chowki Borai District Dhamtari where the postmortem examination was conducted by Dr Suresh Kumar Nag (PW-15) who prepared the report (Ex.P-15). As per postmortem report, the cause of death was due to electric shock and duration of death was within 12 to 24 hours. FIR (Ex.P-7) and (Ex.P-18) was lodged by (PW-9) and (PW-17) against the appellants. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants under Sections 304(A) IPC and 135 (A) of the Electricity Act followed by framing of charge accordingly.

(2.) Learned Court below held the accused/appellants guilty for all the aforesaid charges and sentenced them to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs. 5000/- u/s 304 (A) IPC, to pay fine of Rs. 9000/- under Section 135(A) of the Electricity Act respectively, vide judgment impugned dated 13.10.2008 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 21/2007. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by trial court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence collected by the prosecution. He submits that Duban Singh Nishad (PW-1), Tulsi Ram (PW-4), Keshav Ram Sahu (PW-6) and Ramchandra (PW-8) have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that there is no last seen evidence in this case. Deceased died due to his own negligence. As a last resort counsel for the appellants submits that if this Court does not interfere with the conviction part of the judgment impugned at least the sentence imposed on them may be reduced to the period already undergone.