PRALHAD S/O JAGATRAM CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS POLICE STATION OFFICER, POLICE STATION, MANA, DIST AKOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant herein has filed this appeal challenging judgment and order dated 29.08.2005 passed by Sessions Court, Akola (Trial Court) in Sessions Trial No.42/2005, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/.

(2.) The prosecution case was that; early in the morning on 101.2005, one Ashok Barde along with Samadhan Meshram had gone to the agricultural field bearing Gat No.12 situated at village Kasarkhed, Taluka Murtizapur, District Akola, which was owned by one Dilip Bhatkar, for manufacturing illicit liquor. It was the case of the prosecution that when the said Ashok Barde had gone to fetch firewood, he came in contact with a live wire in the field and died on the spot due to electrocution. The said wire was said to have been used for illegally taking electricity from a high voltage 11 KV. electric cable passing above the said agricultural field. The case of the prosecution was that although the said field was owned by Dilip Bhatkar, it was in possession of the appellant, who was carrying on agricultural operations therein. On this basis, it was alleged that the appellant was responsible for causing death of said Ashok Barde.

(3.) The incident was reported to the police by Bhaskar Bhatkar (PW3), but the oral report was submitted by one Gautam Barde (PW1), on the basis of which, First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 02.01.2005 itself. Investigation was undertaken by Kailash Pundkar (PW8), investigating officer who recorded statements of various persons including the Police Patil and the owner of the field and on the basis of the material collected during investigation, he filed the chargesheet. It was claimed that record of rights (7/12 extract) pertaining to the said agricultural field, produced by the owner Dilip Bhatkar (PW6), demonstrated that the appellant was in cultivating possession of the field when the said incident took place. The appellant was charged with having committed the said offence under Section 304 of the IPC.