Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
Dharmaraj and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. A. (MD) Nos. 126 and 132 of 2012
Decided On : 18-05-2020
Indian Electricity Act – 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 174 – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 338, 304, 108, 109, 333 – Order of Conviction – These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 13.06.2012 made in S.C. No. 43 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirapalli. – There were originally six accused in this case. – The third accused Selvam @ Periyasamy died even before the commencement of the trial – Accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. – The prosecution examined PW. 1 to PW. 49 and marked Exs. P1 to P258 and MO. 1 to MO. 15. – On the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced. – Trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offences with which they were charged. – All the accused were tried for the offences under Section 304A IPC on 64 counts and Section 338 of IPC on 33 counts. – First accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- for each of the charges. – A2 was however sentenced to pay only fine. – A4 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for each count for the offence under Section 304A and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each count for the offence under Section 333 of IPC. – He was given lesser sentence for the other charges. – The fifth accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each count of the offence under section 304A and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for each count of the offence under Section 338 of IPC. – He was also given lesser sentence for the other charges. – A6 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for each count of the offence under Section 304A of IPC as well as for each count of the offence under Section 338 of IPC and given lesser sentence for the other charges. – The second accused did not file any appeal.– Held, A6 Murugesan is the electrician who had given temporary electric connection. – It is not in dispute that he was the electrician in question. A6 has not taken any plea anywhere that he had been falsely implicated. – His defence would be that he was not at fault. – Now, the question arises as to whether A6 was having license to act as an electrician. – There is nothing on record to show that A6 was licensed to act as an electrician. – In the first floor, the electrical lights and pedestal fans had been installed. Videography was being taken. – All the electrical appliances were getting energy from the junction box. – Since heavy load was being drawn for multi purposes, excess heat had obviously been triggered. – When one examines the cause for fire accident in such cases, one can note that extension cords can send excess heat and when they get in contact with inflammable items, the result will be fire. – In this case, due to unsafe drawing of electricity connection, there has been sending of excess heat to the focus light and when it came in contact with the decoration papers, the occurrence had taken place. – That is the immediate cause for the accident occurrence. – Court confirm the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Trial Judge against the sixth accused as such. – Criminal Appeals Partly Allowed
JUDGMENT :
G.R. Swaminathan, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 13.06.2012 made in S.C. No. 43 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirapalli. There were originally six accused in this case. The third accused Selvam @ Periyasamy died even before the commencement of the trial. The charges framed against the accused are as under:
|
| Charges |
| A1 | U/s. 304A IPC (64 counts), 338 IPC (33) counts |
| A2 | U/s. 304A IPC (64 counts), 338 IPC (33) counts and u/s. 108 (Expl. 1) r/w. 109 IPC |
| A3 | Died |
| A4 & A5 | U/s. 304A IPC (64 counts), 338 IPC (33) counts and u/s. 108 (Expl. 1) r/w. 109 IPC U/s. 45 r/w. 139 of Indian Electricity Act U/s. 271 r/w. 441(1)(4) Sch.V. of Corporation Act |
| A6 | U/s. 304A IPC (64 counts), 338 IPC (33) counts and u/s. 108 (Expl. 1) r/w. 109 IPC U/s. 45 r/w. 139 of Indian Electricity Act |
2. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW. 1 to PW. 49 and marked Exs. P1 to P258 and MO. 1 to MO. 15. On the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced. The learned trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offences with which they were charged. All the accused were tried for the offences under Section 304A IPC on 64 counts and Section 338 of IPC on 33 counts. The first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- for each of the charges. A2 was however sentenced to pay only fine. A4 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for each count for the offence under Section 304A and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each count for the offence under Section 333 of IPC. He was given lesser sentence for the other charges. The fifth accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each count of the offence under section 304A and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for each count of the offence under Section 338 of IPC. He was also given lesser sentence for the other charges. A6 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for each count of the offence under Section 304A of IPC as well as for each count of the offence under Section 338 of IPC and given lesser sentence for the other charges. The second accused did not file any appeal. A1, A4 and A5 and A6 have filed these appeals.
3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Counsel (crl. side) appearing for the State.
Background facts:
4. The marriage of Gururajan with Jayasri was to be solemnized on 23.01.2004 between 09.00 A.M. to 10.00 A.M. at Padmapriya Marriage Hall, Srirangam, Trichy District. Shortly before the auspicious moment, the decoration papers hanging from the temporary roof caught fire and in a few seconds, the entire gathering was engulfed in a ball of fire. The assembled guests tried to escape. In the ensuing stampede, as many as 64 persons died and 33 persons suffered injuries. Gururajan, the bridegroom perished in the fire. One Rajagopalan who is a close relative of Gururajan lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station. It was registered as Crime No. 21 of 2004 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Investigation was taken up and final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Tiruchirappalli. The case was committed to the Sessions Court in PRC No. 1 of 2008. The learned Sessions Judge framed as many as seven charges as mentioned above.
5. The first accused Dharmaraj was the videographer. The second accused Balaji was his assistant. The third accused Selvam @ Periyasamy had erected the temporary roof in the first floor where the occurrence has taken place. The fourth accused Ramasamy was the owner of the marriage hall
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
