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.

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:-

The period of sentence already undergone by the appellants / A1 and A2 either as remand prisoner or under trial prisoner was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. and the period of imprisonment in both the offences to run concurrently.

3. The charge stems from an incident on 26.04.2018, when the appellants unlawfully installed an electric fence around their agricultural land using Vathanarayanan tree sticks to prevent wild pigs from damaging their paddy field. The electricity was illegally sourced by tampering with Uthanda Raman's electric connection. The fence was connected to a high-voltage power supply.

3.1. On 27.04.2018, at around 04:30 a.m., Venugopal, the adjacent landowner, came into contact with this illegal electric fence while tending to his field and was electrocuted to death on the spot. The appellants later informed Venugopal's brother, Kannayiram, that Venugopal was found motionless in the field. They transported the body to the hospital, where it was declared dead.

3.2. However, during the last rites, Kannayiram observed injuries on Venugopal's body and found his mobile phone and slippers in unusual places, which raised his suspicions of foul play. He then filed a complaint with the respondent Police. The investigation confirmed that the cause of death was electric shock due to the illegal fence.

3.3. The investigation also revealed evidence of the unlawful electricity connection and the appellants' negligence, leading to the tragic death of Venugopal. Statements from witnesses, reports from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Circle regarding the illegal connection, and the post-mortem examination supported the case against the appellants.

3.4. The trial Court examined 23 witnesses and marked 19 exhibits during the trial. After evaluating the evidence, 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. for causing death due to negligence and Section 135(1)(a) of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003, for illegal electricity usage and sentenced them as stated above.

4. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence rendered in Spl.S.C.