THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.829 of 2007 Date:17.04.2014 Between:
Guggilla Kashanna . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.829 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 19-06-2007 in Crl.A.No.88/2006 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar whereunder judgment dated 29-06-2006 in Sessions Case No.559/2005 on the file of I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahabubnagar was modified to the extent of sentence.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:- Inspector of Police, Jadcherla filed charge sheet alleging that in the year 2005, accused has taken the land of one Lingaiah in Survey No.671, within the limits of Thatikonda Village on lease for cultivation. Likewise, the deceased took the land of Krishnaiah (brother of Lingaiah) in Survey No.671, which is adjacent to the land in Survey No.670 on lease and both these leases are oral. In both the lands, bore wells were existing with electric connections and about five days prior to 11-05-2005, the deceased and the accused sowed paddy seeds in a portion of the lands taken by them on oral basis. The accused erected small wooden pegs with steel wire fencing around his paddy seeds and used to take illegal electric connection from the motor starter to the above fencing wire in order to prevent wild animals from entering into his land. As usual, on 11-05-2005, the accused took illegal connection from the motor starter to the fencing wire erected by him. On that night, both the accused and the deceased were watching in their respective fields, at about 01:30 A.M., a group of wild pigs entered into their lands and on seeing them, the deceased shouted at them and chased behind the pigs to drive them away from his agricultural lands and without the knowledge of illegal electric connection, he came into contact with the live wire erected by the accused, due to which, he got electric shock and died on the spot. On the complaint of P.W.1, police registered Crime No.55/2005 and investigation revealed that accused has committed offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC. On these allegations, nine witnesses are examined and 12 documents are marked besides M.Os.1 to 3 on behalf of prosecution and on behalf of accused no witness is examined and no document is marked. On an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found accused guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced him to suffer three years imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, accused preferred appeal to the Court of Session and I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed conviction, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to two years and also awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the wife of deceased. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that there is no direct evidence for the alleged incident and the entire prosecution case is on the suspicion against accused.
He further submitted that P.W.6 is the owner of the land and there is no material to show that accused took the land on lease from P.W.6. He further submitted that if prosecution version is true and correct, the dead body of the deceased should have been out side the land, but it was found inside the land and this aspect would throw any amount of doubt as to the correctness of the prosecution case and both trial Court and appellate Court have failed to consider these aspects. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9, it is clear that accused has drawn power illegally to the fencing and that the deceased was in the process of chasing pigs, that have tried to enter into the land, came into contact with live wire and died, thereby accused has committed offence and both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly convicted him and that there are no grounds to interfere.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether the judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, accused erected small wooden pegs with steel wire fencing around paddy seeds and used to take illegal electrical connection from the motor starter to the above fencing wire in order to prevent wild pigs entering into his land. According to prosecution, as usual on 11-05-2005, accused took illegal electric connection to the fencing wire and that caused the death of the deceased. Out of nine witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the Village Secretary of Thatikonda, who lodged complaint to the police, P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased, P.W.3 is one of the circumstantial witness, P.W.4 is the mediator for inquest held on the dead body, P.W.5 is the photographer, P.W.6 is the owner of the land in Survey No.670, P.W.8 is the medical officer and P.Ws.7 & 9 are the investigating officers. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the accused is cultivating land o f P.W.6 on lease basis. This objection is raised before the trial Court and appellate Court also. Both Courts have discarded the objection on the ground that evidence of P.W.6 is sufficient to show that the accused is a tenant of land in Survey No.670. P.W.6 is the owner of the land in Survey No.670 and he deposed that he leased out the land to the accused on oral lease in the year 2005, just 20 days prior to the incident. Though this P.W.6 was cross- examined, contradictory suggestions were put to him contending that at one stage he is working as Hamali in the rice mill and at another stage he is working as farm servant of P.W.6. Considering these versions of the defence, both trial Court and appellate Court observed that evidence of P.W.6 cannot be brushed aside. Further, evidence of P.W.1 who is a Village Secretary has supported and corroborated the version of P.W.6. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by the trial Court or appellate Court.
7. The other objection of the Advocate for revision petitioner is that there is no material against accused and only on suspicion, he was charge sheeted.
He submitted that suspicion, however, strong it may be, it cannot lead to convict a person and to support his argument, he relied on a decision of Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v.
State of Assam
[1]
. In that decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that suspicion, however, strong, it cannot take place of proof and convicting accused on suspicion is not legal, but here there is evidence against the accused coupled with supporting circumstances. P.Ws.1 to 3 & 6 have deposed that the accused was drawing electricity illegally from the service connection of motor shed and connected the same to fencing of the land to prevent entry of wild pigs and other animals. It is also clear from the evidence that the deceased died as he came into contact with the live electrical wire in the process of driving away the pigs, which he noticed entering into his land. Both trial Court and appellate Court have elaborately discussed evidence of prosecution witnesses and I do not find any wrong appreciation either by trial Court or appellate Court. As there is evidence, the contention of the revision petitioner that the accused is charge sheeted on mere suspicion cannot be accepted and the decision relied on by Advocate for revision petitioner has no application.
8. Both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and came to correct conclusion and that there are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the Courts below.
9. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below for the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner for an offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
10. Now coming to the sentence part, appellate Court reduced the imprisonment of three years into two years and now the request of the Advocate for revision petitioner is that some lenient view may be taken since the incident was occurred long back and there is no intention on the part of the revision petitioner. Admittedly, the incident was in the month of May 2005, which is nearly 9 years ago. Revision petitioner is an agriculturist and his intention was only to prevent wild animals entering into his land but unfortunately, it resulted in death of an individual. So from the evidence, it is clear that due to the negligent act of the revision petitioner, this incident happened, therefore, some lenient view can be taken with regard to sentence. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, facts of the case and the representation of the revision petitioner, I feel that two years imprisonment can be reduced to six months and with that modification revision is liable to be dismissed.
11. For the reasons mentioned above, revision is dismissed confirming conviction, but the sentence of two years imprisonment is reduced to six months while confirming compensation awarded by the appellate Court.
12. The trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of the accused for undergoing unexpired portion of the sentence.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date: 17.04.2014 mrb
[1] 2013 Crl. L.J. 3140