Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Manikandan – Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by, The Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. aggravated responsibility through unlawful electric fencing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conduct of the appellants, claiming accidental electrocution. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. prosecution's evidentiary support and testimony of witnesses. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. discrepancies in testimonies and investigation procedures. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. inadequate prosecution evidence leading to reasonable doubt. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. compensation not admission of guilt; acquittal in appeal. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
M.Nirmal Kumar, J.
This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered in Spl.S.C.No.6 of 2020, dated 29.02.2024, by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Villupuram.
2. The appellants/accused in Spl.S.C.No.6 of 2020 are convicted by the trial Court by judgment dated 29.02.2024, as under:-
The appellants were initially charged for the offences under Section 304(ii) I.P.C., Section 135(1)(a) of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court found the appel
The court determined that insufficient evidence existed to justify the conviction for death due to electrocution, emphasizing the prosecution's failure in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence can corroborate a conviction even without eyewitnesses, provided it forms a continuous chain and the accused fails to counter it effectively.
Proving direct causation is essential in establishing liability under Section 304-A IPC for criminal negligence.
criminal justice delivery system the appreciation of evidence it is vested with the trial Court as under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act
The main legal point established is the liability of the accused for the death of the elephant due to electrocution from an unauthorized electric fence, leading to convictions under the Electricity A....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and death by negligence, as defined in Section 304 and Section 304A of IPC, respectively.
Negligence leading to accidental death can attract liability under Section 304-A IPC when safety protocols are ignored despite known risks, as established by credible evidence.
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
