Chattisgarh High Court
Pappu @ Daneshwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 March, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2025.03.28
16:41:35
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 497 of 2011
Order Reserved on 25.03.2025
Order Delivered on 28.03.2025
• Kamal Narayan, S/o Baisakhu Ram Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o
Village Bhainsatara, Tehsil Rajim, P.S. Rajim, Distt. Raipur C.G.
--- Applicant
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Raipur, District
Raipur, C.G.
---Non-applicant
CRR No. 532 of 2011
• Pappu @ Daneshwar, S/o Manharan Sahu Sukhidas, aged about 21
years, R/o Village Bhaisatara, Tehsil Rajim, District Raipur, C.G.
---Applicant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station In-charge, Police Station
Rajim, District Raipur, C.G.
--- Non-applicant
CRR No. 566 of 2011
• Girdhari, S/o Jhudawan Sahu, aged about 39 years, R/o Village
Bhainsatara, Tehsil Rajim, P.S. Rajim, District Raipur, C.G.
---Applicant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Raipur, District
Raipur, C.G.
---Non-applicant
For Respective Applicants : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Mr. C.R. Sahu
and Ms. Khusbhu Sahu, Advocates.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel
Lawyer.
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
CAV Order
1.
Since all the above captioned revisions arise of the same incident that
took place on 14.01.2008, therefore, they are being heard together and
disposed of by this common order.
2. The present applicants have preferred these criminal revisions under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated
19.08.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband,
District Raipur, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.48/2011, whereby the
learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while affirming the
judgment dated 04.06.2011 passed in Criminal Case No.153/2008 by
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, C.G, convicting the
applicants under Section 304-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for
short, 'IPC') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year and fine of Rs.300/-, in default thereof, to undergo additional
rigorous imprisonment for three months.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.01.2008, complainant-
Netram Sahu lodged Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-4) stating therein that one
Kamal Sahu informed him over telephone that present applicants, from
the field of Mahesh Sahu, pulled the electric wire from pole to the field
of Girdhari Sahu and on account of such pulling, the electric wire
touched the fencing installed in the field of Mahesh Sahu and on the
fateful day, deceased- Naveen Yadav, while passing the field of
Mahesh Sahu, came in contact with the fencing and died on account of
electrocution. Based on the said report, FIR Ex.P-10 was registered
against the present applicants. Thereafter, merg intimation (Ex.P-5)
was recorded and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-2
and dead body was sent for postmortem examination where Dr. A.K.
Humne (PW-5) examined the dead body and gave his report Ex.P-8
opining that deceased died of electrocution.
4. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-6. From the
spot, old electric wires were seized vide Ex.P-3 and the statements of
the witnesses were recorded. Accused/applicants were taken into
custody vide Exs.P-14 to P-16.
5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against
the present applicants before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Rajim, C.G. The accused persons / applicants abjured their guilt
and prayed for trial.
6. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on
record, the Court of learned JMFC and the Appellate Court, convicted
and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in the Para No. 1 of this
order. Hence, these revisions.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the Court of
JMFC as well as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the
evidence available on record, were not justified in convicting and
sentencing the applicants for the aforesaid offence. They would further
submit that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of
PW-1 Rukhmani and her husband- Channulal (PW-2) and their
statements do not corroborate with each other. They would also submit
that other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and not supported
the prosecution case and that prosecution has also not examined
Mahesh Sahu in whose field the fencing was installed and deceased
came in contact with that fencing and died due to electrocution. They
would also submit that PW-14 M.K. Shukla, Junior Engineer, CSEB
has submitted its report vide Exs.P-19 & P-20 on the next date of
incident which was based on the information sought by him from the
accused-Girdhari and Devlal Sahu, but the said Devlal Sahu has not
been examined by the prosecution. They would also submit that as per
Ex.P-3 seizure memo, 200-250 feet electric wires were seized from the
place of incident, but from where such electric wires have been seized
has not been specifically described in the seizure memo and there is
no evidence to show that accused-Girdhari Sahu had taken illegal
electric connection for digging the bore-well and that the prosecution
has also failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On these
premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicants that applicants be
acquitted of the charge leveled against them.
8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State, while supporting the
impugned judgments, submits that the Court of JMFC as well as
Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants
and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference
by this Court.
9. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
10. PW-3 Netram Sahu/complainant has stated that one Kamal Sahu
informed him over telephone that in the field of Channu, one person,
who belongs to Odisha, was digging the bore-well and died due to
electrocution. Thereafter, he went to the spot and saw a dead body lying
near the field of Munna Dhruv. He has further stated that he admitted his
signatures over the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-4), but denied the contents with
respect to alleged incident and how the police wrote about the incident
is not known to him. He has further deposed that he has only stated that
one person, who belongs to Odisha, was lying dead and except this, he
did not state anything to the police. He also admitted that he did not
know as to who laid the electric wire. This apart, prosecution has also
not examined Kamal Sahu who allegedly informed about the incident to
this witness (PW-3 Netram Sahu), making the prosecution case
doubtful. Moreover, PW-1 Rukhmani has also stated that later on, she
came to know that the present applicants had laid an electric wire for
digging the bore-well in their field, due to which, the electric wire
touched the fencing installed in the field of Mahesh where deceased-
Naveen came in contact and died of electrocution. Furthermore, PW-2
Channulal Sahu, has stated that after the incident, he went to the spot
and asked about the laying of electric connection, then accused-
Girdhari told him that he did not know anything. Then, he asked his wife
PW-1 Rukhmani whereupon she informed him that the accused persons
themselves laid the electric wire, but PW-1 Rukhmani has not stated in
her statement that she informed about the incident to her husband PW-2
Channulal. He also admitted that at the time of incident, he was not
present on the spot and further admitted that there were many bore-well
connections in and around the field of Mahesh. Thus, from perusal of
above evidence, it appears that PW-1 Rukhmani is a hearsay witness
and her evidence does not corroborate with the statement of her
husband- Channulal Sahu (PW-2). Besides, prosecution witnesses
namely PW-7 Parsuram, PW-8 Narad Ram, PW-10 Kirtanlal Sahu,
PW-11 Beer Singh and PW-12 Girdhari Yadav have turned hostile as
they did not support the prosecution case.
Moreover, PW-13 Ugeram, father of the deceased, who was also
working at time of incident, has also not stated about his son's death
(deceased) due to electrocution and that, had any alleged illegal
connection been taken by the accused-Girdhari from the field of
Mahesh, then PW-13 Ugeram certainly would have informed about the
same in his statement, but he did not say anything. This apart,
prosecution has also not examined Mahesh Sahu in whose field the
fencing was installed and deceased came in contact with that fencing
and died due to electrocution. Furthermore, PW-14 M.K. Shukla, Junior
Engineer, CSEB has stated that he has submitted its report vide Exs.P-
19 & P-20 on the next date of incident which was based on the
information sought by him from the accused-Girdhari and Devlal Sahu,
but the said Devlal Sahu has not been examined by the prosecution for
the reasons best known to it. This witness (PW-14) also admitted that in
Exs.P-19 & Ex.P-20, there was no mention with respect to seizure of
wire and further admitted that loose fencing wire lying on the field was of
Mahesh Sahu and that electric connection which was taken by Mahesh
Sahu was found to be valid. He also admitted that he did not seize any
pump from the spot. That apart, PW-6 V.S. Thakur, Investigating Officer,
has stated that on 14.01.2008, from the spot, he had seized 200-250
feet wire and prepared the seizure memo vide Ex.P-3, but from which
place such electric wires have been seized by him (PW-16) has not
been specifically described in the seizure memo (Ex.P-3) nor
panchanama or any document was prepared in this regard. As against
this, PW-14 M.K. Shukla has stated that he has also seized electric wire
from the spot and kept the same in his Office, but as per seizure memo
(Ex.P-3), alleged electric wire has already been seized by PW-16 V.S.
Thakur on 14.01.2008 and if that be so, which type of electric wire, he
(PW-14) has seized on the fateful day, has not been mentioned in his
report (Exs.P-19 & P-20), also making the seizure proceedings of
alleged electric wire doubtful. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the
duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but
in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to discharge its
duty by adducing cogent and clinching evidence to show the complicity
of the applicants in the crime in question.
11. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the
applicants are entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt as
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court
were totally unjustified in convicting and sentencing the applicants for
the aforesaid offence.
12. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the
Court of JMFC dated 04.06.2011 and that of Appellate Court dated
19.08.2011 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicants
are acquitted of the charge under Section 304-A read with 34 of IPC by
extending them the benefit of doubt.
13. In the result, all the criminal revisions are allowed.
14. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail
bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view
of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Akhilesh
