KANNIYAPPAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was tried for the offence under Ss. 304A, 379 of IPC and Sec. 40 of the Indian Electricity Act. Initially, the case was tried by the Judicial Magistrate at Puducherry, later after repeal of Electricity Act, 1910 and introduction of new Electricity Act, 2003, the offence is triable by Sessions Judge. So, the case was transferred to the Special Judge (Under the Electricity Act 2003) at Puducherry. The trial has continued before the Special Judge. After examining 15 witnesses and appreciating 12 exhibits and 8 material objects filed in support of the prosecution, the trial Court has held the accused guilty of offence under Ss. 304A, 379 of IPC and sec. 40 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 sentenced him to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 304A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one (1) year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 379 I.P.C. r/w 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. As far as the charge under sec. 40 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. The substantial sentences of imprisonments were ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone, if any, was directed to be set off under sec. 428 of Cr.P.C., 1973

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the present appeal is preferred by the accused on the ground that the allegation of the prosecution that on 18/4/2005 at about 03.45 p.m., one Dhandapani died in his house out of electrocution due to negligence of the appellant-house owner for not providing safety device and drawing electricity directly from the low tension line by hooking the death has occurred, hence the appellant is liable. However, the prosecution has neither proved the illegal drawing of electricity or the culpability of the accused, who was admittedly not present during the occurrence.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further submit that out of 15 witnesses examined by the prosecution, 8 witnesses have turned hostile. The evidence of PW-12[Thiru.Ganesan, Junior Engineer attached to Electricity Board] bristles with contradictions and falsehood. Admittedly, he had visited the scene of occurrence on 18/4/2005 at about 03.45 p.m., immediately on receipt of the information from Thavalakuppam Police Station. He has prepared his report[Ex.P6] which is dtd. 19/4/2005. In his report, he has not mentioned anything about the presence of electric fitting and wiring. He has only illustrated about his inference how the accident has occurred. Apart from the evidence of PW-12, yet another witness for prosecution PW-13 [Thiru.Narasimhan], Head Constable of Thavalakuppam Police Station has spoken about his visit to the scene of occurrence, preparation of sketch and recovery of material objects in the presence of the witnesses. Since the independent witnesses for the recovery have turned hostile, the evidence of PW-13 is highly doubtful.