IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Mani ... Appellant Vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thirupalapanthal Police Station, Villupuram District.

Crime No.162 of 2020 ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram by a judgment dated 05.08.2023 in Special Case No.9 of 2021 by allowing this appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.K.R.Samratt For Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram in Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2021 dated 05.08.2023.

2. The appellant / Accused was convicted by the trial Court for the offences under Section 304(ii) of IPC and Section 135(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced as follows:

3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was cultivating in a land measuring 5.00 acres; that in order to prevent damage to the crops, he erected an electric fence and had tapped electricity illegally from an electric pole near the land; and that the victim accidentally came into contact with the live wire fencing and died; and thus committed the offences under Section 135(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 304(ii) IPC. 4. The father of the victim, P.W.1 had lodged a complaint Ex.P1 on

14.04.2020. On the basis of the said complaint, P.W.8 the Sub-Inspector of Police registered an F.I.R. in Crime No.162 of 2020 for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted by P.W.11, who is the Inspector of Police, after examining all the witnesses filed the final report for the offences under Section 304(ii) IPC and Section 135(1)(e)

of the Electricity Act, 2003.

5. The prosecution framed two charges against the appellant for the offences under Section 135(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 304(ii) IPC. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. The trial Court found the appellant guilty of both the offences and sentenced him as stated above.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and apart from the vague deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.2 stating that the appellant was cultivating crops in the land, there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant had erected the electric fencing or tapped electricity from the nearby electric pole; that the prosecution had not examined the owner of the land, one Venkatesan; that the Village Administrative Officer would admit that he had not furnished any documents to the Investigating Officer to prove the ownership of the land or the person who is cultivating the land; that the evidence of the Junior Engineer of the Electricity Department is also of no avail to the prosecution; that the prosecution has not established the fact that electricity was tapped by marking any photographs; that the rough sketch marked by the prosecution Ex.P11 and the document attached to the complaint of P.W.9 marked as Ex.P10 are contrary to each other; and that in the absence of any evidence to show that the appellant had erected the fence, the impugned judgment convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 135(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003 or under Section 304 (ii) IPC cannot be sustained.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, per contra, would submit the fact that the victim was electrocuted because of the electric fence