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
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 appellants not guilty and acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015 and convicted them for the offences under Section 304(ii) I.P.C. and Section 135(1)(a) of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 and sentenced them as follows:-
| Section | Sentence |
| 304 (ii) I.P.C. | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. |
| 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. |
The period of sentence already undergone b
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.
As per Electricity Rules Electricity Department has to conduct periodical checkups on electrical installations & take adequate precautions to ensure that no live parts/wires are so exposed as to caus....
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
