IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.06.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.R.C.No.32 of 2014
Kasiraja ... Petitioner Vs State by Inspector of Police, Vettavalam Police Station, Vettavalam, Thiruvannamalai Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and set aside the Judgment of conviction dated 13.11.2013 in C.A.54 of 2005 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai by confirming the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai in S.C.No.85 of 2003 dated 24.10.2005
For petitioner : Mrs. Beulah John Selvaraj For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran Govt. Advocate (Crl. side)
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in S.C.No.85 of 2003 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate & Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, for offences under Section 304(ii) & 201 IPC. The trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 304(ii) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks under Section 201 IPC. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant filed a Criminal appeal, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai district. The lower appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Now challenging the same the present revision petition has been filed.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:-
The deceased in this case is one Narasimaraja is the husband of PW1. He was an agriculturist and was having agricultural land at Rajapalayam Village in Thiruvannamalai Taluk. The accused is his neighbouring land owner and he has cultivated groundnut crops in his land; since wild bore had damaged the groundnut crops, the accused had put up an electric wire fencing illegally around his land. The deceased having agricultural lands nearby to the accused, on 08.09.1999, while he was crossing the agricultural land of the accused, he got electricuted shock and died in the illegally laid electric wire fencing. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was thrown in a well, belonging to one Elumalai. Since the deceased did not return home, in the evening PW1 and PW2 were searching for him; at that time, they were informed by the villagers that the deceased body was floating in the well. Then, PW4 and others took the body and found some burned injuries in the right foot of the deceased; thereafter, the body was brought to the PW1's house. PW13, Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of information, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and obtained a statement from PW1 and based on their statement, he registered a case in Crime No.44 of 1989m as under Section 174 Cr.PC. Then, he commenced investigation and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panchayats and prepared inquest report, which is marked as Ex.P.9. Then, the body was sent for postmortem to Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai. PW12, Doctor, who was working in Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai, had conducted postmortem autopsy over the dead-body and gave Postmortem certificate and the postmorterm report is marked as Ex.P6. following injuries were found:-
http://www.judis.nic.in "External appearance R.M. passed in all infore limbs both eyes closed and olemstous of both eyelids discharged from the both nostils. Mouth opened with bleeding from mouth. Grined pettile leves seen inside mouth. Face is swollen on abrasin measuring 2cm x 2 cm in the right nipple. An abrason 4 cmx1 cm right oblamien a charred wound 4 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm in the amteiar aspect of the lower 1/3 right leg. a charred wound 4 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm in the amteiar aspect of the lower 1/3 right leg. a charrged wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm in the anterior aspect of the left leg (foot) near bigtoe. Both sole lenund pale in colour just like washerman foot. Both palms found pale in colour like wise washerman hand. Body found to be decomposed. AB+ distented and feel to hard. External genital normal. Internal examination Skull and Hyoid bone intact. Ribs intact. Lungs right and left normal. No water content in the lungs. Heart chambers empty. Liver and aplin congested and blackish in colour. Stomach empty. Brain congested. Intestine Empty. Bladder empty. Kidneys right and left congested and blackish in colour. The following organs has been handed over to Chemical analysis. 1) Liver 2) Spleen 3) Kidney 4) Intestine 5) Hyoid bone preserved postmortem concluded at 5:00 p.m.
Doctor gave his opinion that the deceased died due to electric shock. PW13, continued the investigation, recorded the statement. PW15 and PW16, Inspector of Police, and after completion of investigation, final report has been filed.
4. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges for offence, under Section 304 (ii) 201 of IPC when questioned, the accused denied the same. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and marked 13 exhibits and two material objects were produced.
http://www.judis.nic.iOn ut of the witnesses examined, PW1 is the wife of the deceased. According to her, the deceased is an agriculturist and the accused is a neighbouring land owner and he cultivated groundnut crops; since wild bore damaged his crops, he illegally put up an electric wire fencing around his land and the deceased, while crossing the land in the early morning on 08.02.1999 got electric shock and died because of the illegal wire fencing put up by the accused, thereafter the body was thrown in a well, belonging to one Elumalai. She suspected that the accused might have thrown the body in the well, after the death of her husband. PW2 is the daughter of the deceased; she also deposed that the deceased went to his agricultural land in the early morning on 08.02.1999 and did not return till 5:00 p.m. in the evening. Subsequently, the villagers had informed them that the body was floating in Elumalai's well, she found some injuries in the lips, right foot and in both the legs and further deposed that he died due to electric shock from the electric wire fencing put up by the accused; and she also says that the accused had thrown the body of the deceased into the well. PW3, one of the villagers, deposed regarding the agricultural land owned by the deceased and the accused, she saw the body of the deceased floating in the well. Then, she informed that PW1 and PW2 lifted the dead body and brought the body to PW1s house; at that time, she saw some burned injuries in the right foot of the deceased. She also further stated that there is a rumour in the village that the deceased had died due to electric wire shock and thereafter, the dead body was thrown into a well, belongs to Elumalai. PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9 who are the villagers, turned hostile. PW10 is a witness to the observation mahazar relating to the recovery of some wires and Bamboo sticks. PW11, VAO is also a witness to the observation mahazar. PW12, Doctor, who conducted Postmortem gave a postmortem report which was marked as Ex.P.6. PW13, Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR, conducted enquiry and recorded statement given by the Doctor and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.
5. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., regarding the above incriminating materials, he denied the same, he did not examine any witness or mark any documents.
6. Considering the above materials the trial Court convicted the accused as mentioned supra. Challenging the same the petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.54/2005 and the lower appellate Court confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. Now challenging the same the present revision is filed.
7. It is the settled proposition of law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances projected by the prosecution are to be proved beyond reasonable doubts and such proved circumstances should form a complete chain without any break, pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any other hypothesis, which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. Keeping the above proposition of law in mind, now this Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is a specific case of the prosecution that the accused had put up an illegal electric wire fence around his land, in order to save his crops from wild boar and the deceased, who is the owner of neighbour land, while crossing the petitioner's land, got electric shock from the electrical wire fencing and died. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nearly 11 witnesses out of the same, PW1 is the wife of the deceased, PW2 is daughter of the deceased. From their evidence, it is seen that on the date of occurrence at 4:00 a.m. deceased left his house and went to his agricultural land and he did not return home till 5:00 p.m. in the evening and some villagers informed them that the dead body of the deceased was floating in the well of Elumalai. They found burned injuries in the right foot of the deceased; hence, they are suspecting that the deceased died in electric shock from the electric wire fence put up by the accused. PW3 said to have seen the body floating in the well and informed PW1 and PW2. But, other witnesses PW4 to PW9 turned hostile. PW10 and PW11 are mahazar witnesses. P.W.12 is the doctor conducted postmorterm autopsy. From the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW12, it could be seen that the deceased died due to electric shock. According to PW1 and PW2, the death was occurred in the agricultural land of the deceased, but body was floating in a well of one Elumalai which is 400 metres, away from the agricultural land of the accused. But, absolutely, there is no evidence to show that how the body was taken to the well which is far away from the accused land. Even PW1 did not say that it is only the accused thrown the body in the well. She only says that she suspects that only the accused threw the body in the well after his death. Hence, there is absolutely no evidence to show that it is only the accused who had thrown the body in well. Hence, the charge under Section 201 IPC is not proved.
8. So far as charge under Section 304(ii) IPC is concerned, the main contention of the prosecution is that the accused has put up an electric wire fencing around his land and the deceased was electrocuted . To prove the same, absolutely there is no evidence. What was recovered, on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused is that a coil of 200 feet binding wire and some Bamboo sticks, apart from that there is no material evidence available on record to show that the petitioner has put up an electric wire fencing around his land. Even PW3, PW10, PW11 (mahazar witness) and PW11 stated that there were only someother materials were available in the land. Apart from that, absolutely there is no evidence to show that the petitioner has put an electric wire fence. The one and only evidence available is the medical evidence. PW12, Doctor, who conducted the postmortem, has given a report that the deceased died due to electrocution. Merely because deceased died of electrocution, it cannot be presumed that he had died due to electric wire put up by the accused, in the absence of any evidence. Mere recovery of some binding wires and bamboo sticks, it cannot be presumed that the accused had put up a wire fencing illegally. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances, which unerringly pointing out the guilt of the accused. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for acquittal. The Court below without considering the evidence in proper perspective, convicted the accused, which is liable to be set aside.
9. In the result, revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted from all the charges. Fine amount if any, should be refunded.
23.06.2017
Index :Yes/No dpq To
1. The learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai
2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai
3. The Inspector of Police, Vettavalam Police Station, Vettavalam,Thiruvannamalai Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
V.BHARATHIDASAN,J
dpq
Crl.R.C.No.32 of 2014
23.06.2017