JODU RAMULU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Suresh Kumar, Counsel representing the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Appellant/accused was charged with Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. But, however, ultimately convicted under Section 304-A IPC and was found to be not guilty for the offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and a sentence was imposed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is preferred.

(3.) Sri Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel representing the appellant/accused had drawn the attention of this Court to Exs.Pl and P2 and also to the evidence available on record and would contend that there are several inherent improbabilities in the version of prosecution. Learned Counsel would submit that the version of the prosecution that sometime prior to 25.8.1994 accused obtained direct electrical connection to his house for the purpose of lighting and for the said purpose accused ran an uninsulated iron wire from the electrical pole situated near the agricultural well of one Lachu Mallu (Electrical Pole No.75) and used 60 metres of wire up to his house with which he arranged an electrical bulb to burn in his house and on the night of 25.8.1994 the deceased came in touch with the same and consequently due to electrocution he died, definitely cannot be believed. Learned Counsel pointed out that the dead body was found in the Maize field of Tirupathi Ready and there was a live electric wire found on the dead body and when that being so the non-examination of Tirupathi Reddy, Lachu Mallu and also any of the owners of the neighbouring agricultural fields would throw some doubt on the version of the prosecution. The learned Counsel had further explained that PWs.4, 5 and 6 were declared hostile and apart from this aspect of the matter when an acquittal had been recorded under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal had totally erred in convicting the appellant/ accused under Section 304-A IPC.