Madras High Court
Manikandan vs The State on 31 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.404 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 29.10.2024
Pronounced On 31.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.404 of 2024
1.Manikandan
2.Nandhan @ Nandhagopal ... Appellants
Vs.
1.The State, Rep. by,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thirukoilur Sub Division,
New Kallakurichi District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Arakandanallur Police Station,
Villupuram District.
(Crime No.376 of 2018)
3.K.Kanniyiram ... Respondents
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records and set aside the conviction
and sentence imposed in Special S.C.No.6 of 2020, dated 29.02.2024, on
the file of 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.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 21
Crl.A.No.404 of 2024
For Appellants : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Vinothraja
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
JUDGMENT
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
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
Electricity Act years.
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
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.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.
5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is
that the deceased, Venugopal, died due to accidental electrocution caused
by a low-lying power line near his well, and not as a result of any illegal
action by the appellants. The appellants, who were agricultural
landowners in the nearby villages, maintain that there was no cordial
relationship with the deceased due to tensions regarding land ownership.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The appellants deny any involvement in illegal activities, such as
installing electric fencing or drawing unauthorized power connections.
According to the postmortem report (Ex.P.10) of the medical officer, the
cause of death was confirmed as electrocution, and no external injuries
were found on the body. The complaint filed by the deceased's family was
based on the discovery of injuries during the last rites, which they
subsequently associated with suspicions of foul play, though no
eyewitnesses were available to testify to the actual incident. In the light of
the medical evidence and the lack of direct evidence of criminal
wrongdoing, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the death
was accidental and that they are not responsible for any unlawful conduct
and therefore, the appellants are not liable for the death of the deceased.
5.1. The learned counsel further submitted that in this case, P.W.13,
the Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Department, stated that on
29.04.2018, he saw a news report in the Daily Thanthi daily regarding the
death of Venugopal due to electrocution. Thereafter, he sent a requisition
to the respondent Police and visited the scene of occurrence. Upon his
visit, he learned that the illegal electric fencing materials had already been
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
seized by the Police and taken to the Police Station. Upon perusal of the
records and conducting a physical inspection, he found that there was a
valid electricity service connection (Service Connection No.216) at the
location. He also observed that there was a changeover switch and that the
wire was positioned at a lower level. However, his report (Ex.P.7) does
not indicate any illegal drawing of electricity from the connection.
Furthermore, the Investigating Officer marked the Rough Sketch
(Ex.P.14), which similarly does not show any evidence of illegal
electricity usage or the installation of an electric fence.
5.2. The learned counsel further submits that though P.W.5,
Elumalai, has been presented as a witness to the Observation Mahazar, it
is noteworthy that he did not sign either the Mahazar (Ex.P.2) or the
Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.13). P.W.5 himself admits to
discrepancies in his testimony regarding the Observation Mahazar. The
other witnesses to the Observation Mahazar, P.W.11 and P.W.12, are
Village Assistants. P.W.11 states that he signed all the documents at the
Police Station, while P.W.12 confirms his signature on the confession and
the Mahazar documents (Exs.P.2 and P.4). However, it is significant that
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
these documents, though purportedly prepared on 29.05.2018 and
29.04.2018 respectively, were only forwarded to the Court along with
Form-91 (Ex.P.17) on 15.07.2019. This delay raises doubts about the
seizure of the three 2 ½ feet Vathanarayanan sticks, five meters of green
wire, fifteen meters of binding wire, and two ceramic carriers from the
lands of the appellants in the presence of witnesses, as well as the
subsequent forwarding of these items to the Court.
5.3. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in
this case, P.W.1 to P.W.9 are relatives of the victim, Venugopal, who
either arrived at the scene of the occurrence, saw the field, or took the
deceased to the hospital, and later participated in the last rites ceremonies.
These witnesses, however, are not connected in any way to the appellants
or the alleged incident. The witness to the Observation Mahazar, P.W.10,
confirms that his signature was taken at the Police Station. Similarly, one
of the Village Assistants, P.W.11, also confirms that his signature was
obtained at the Police Station. P.W.14, the Photographer, stated that
someone had taken pictures using a mobile phone, which were then
converted into photographs by his staff.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
prosecution has failed to establish the appellants' involvement in the death
of Venugopal for several reasons. Firstly, the Village Administrative
Officer (P.W.17) confirmed that the land is still registered under the
appellants' father's name, Ramalingam, and that there is no power
connection either in name of the appellants or in their father's name.
Furthermore, the Village Administrative Officer stated that any power
connection was used for cooking purposes, not through a switch or fuse
carrier, suggesting it was not a formal or legal connection. Secondly, the
Electricity Department witness (P.W.13) admitted that he has not
observed any illegal electricity connection, which undermines the
prosecution's case that the appellants were responsible for setting up the
illegal electric fencing. Furthermore, while the deceased, Venugopal, was
from a Scheduled Caste community, this does not establish a direct link
between the appellants and the alleged illegal electric fencing, as required
for an offence under the SC/ST Act. Further, P.W.21, the Sub Inspector of
Police, admitted that he was not authorized to conduct the investigation; it
was assigned to another officer, raising concerns over procedural errors in
the investigation. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to prove that the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellants set up illegal electric fencing or that it directly caused
Venugopal's death. Finally, the appellants acted responsibly by finding
Venugopal's motionless body, informing P.W.1 (Venugopal's brother),
and taking him to the hospital, which demonstrates their intent to assist,
not harm. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the prosecution has not
provided sufficient evidence to prove the appellants' guilt, and therefore,
the criminal appeal should be allowed.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submits that
in this case, P.W.1 Kannayiram, the brother of the deceased Venugopal,
appeared before the respondent Police and lodged a complaint with
P.W.21. The complaint was received, and a case was registered under
Crime No.376 of 2018 for offenses under Section 304(ii) of the Indian
Penal Code (I.P.C.), Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2015. According to the
complaint, on 27.04.2018 at approximately 05:16 a.m., the appellants and
one Giri contacted the de-facto complainant, informing him that his
brother, Venugopal, had come into contact with an electric fencing and
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was found motionless in the field. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant
questioned the appellants' father about the illegal electric fencing, and the
father promised to provide adequate compensation. The following day, on
28.04.2018 at around 12 noon, when the last rites of Venugopal were
being performed, contusions were noticed on his head, neck, and legs.
Suspecting that the death may not have been due to electrocution but for
some other cause, the de-facto complainant filed a complaint, leading to
the investigation.
6.1.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further
submits that P.W.21 received the complaint and registered the F.I.R. as
Ex.P.12. Subsequently, the body of the deceased Venugopal was taken to
the mortuary of the Government Hospital. The investigation was then
taken over by P.W.22, the Investigating Officer, who conducted an
inquest on the body and arranged for a postmortem. The body was handed
over to P.W.19 for this purpose. P.W.18, the postmortem doctor,
conducted the postmortem and issued a report. The viscera was sent to
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.W.20 for analysis, and the report confirmed the absence of poison or
alcohol. P.W.18 later confirmed that the cause of death was due to electric
shock. The witnesses who were present near the scene of the incident
were examined, and their statements were recorded. P.W.1, the de-facto
complainant, is the brother of the deceased. P.W.8, another brother of
Venugopal, stated that he brought his Tata Ace van, in which Venugopal
was taken to the hospital. P.W.6 and P.W.7, the wife and daughter of the
deceased, were also witnesses. P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.9, who are
relatives, confirmed seeing the illegal electric board installed by the
appellants at the scene of occurrence.
6.2. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) further
submits that P.W.11 and P.W.12, the Village Assistants, were present
during the arrest of the first appellant. On the appellants' confession, an
electric wire, fuse carrier, and binding wire were seized from the
appellants' field. P.W.13, the Assistant Engineer of the Electricity
Department, provided details about the power connection at the scene of
occurrence. Finding that the deceased was from the Scheduled Caste
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
community, the case was transferred to P.W.23, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (D.S.P.), for further investigation. P.W.23
re-examined witnesses, recorded their statements, and filed the final
report. During the trial, P.W.1 and P.W.23 were examined, and Exhibits
P.1 to P.19 were marked as evidence. The trial Court concluded that the
death was caused by electrocution due to an illegal electric fence set up by
the appellants. However, the trial Court determined that the electrocution
was accidental. While the trial Court ruled that the appellants were
responsible for the illegal electric fencing, it also found that the
electrocution did not occur solely because Venugopal belonged to the
Scheduled Caste community. Hence, the appellants were acquitted of
charges under the SC/ST Act.
6.3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further
submits that since the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste
community, compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- was paid to P.W.6, Sulochana,
under the SC/ST Act. Further, at the time of filing the admission and
suspension sentence bail application before this Court in
Crl.M.P.No.6219 of 2024, the appellants were directed to deposit a sum
of Rs.10,00,000/- in the name of the victim in Spl.S.C.No.6 of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2020. This amount was deposited on 02.05.2024. P.W.6, the victim,
received the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and appeared before this Court on
28.06.2024 to confirm the same, and the said confirmation has been duly
recorded.
6.4. Further, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
submits that the victim, P.W.6, had appeared before this Court and
provided an affidavit stating that after further enquiry, it was found that
her husband, Venugopal, had come into contact with a live electric wire.
She clarified that this was not done with any malicious intent but was a
practice followed in the village to keep away wild birds. Consequently,
she expressed that she was not inclined to further pursue the case against
the appellants.
7. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials on
record, it is seen that the appellants have been primarily convicted for the
offence under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and
Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act. In this case, it is undisputed that
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
there is no eyewitness to the incident. P.W.1, the brother of the deceased
Venugopal, was informed by the appellants and one Giri on 27.04.2018 at
around 05:16 a.m. that Venugopal had been found motionless in the field.
Thereafter, P.W.1 and the appellants took Venugopal to the hospital,
where he was pronounced dead. Subsequently, the body was brought back
to Venugopal's house for the last rites. During the process of bathing the
body, contusions were found on the head and neck. This raised suspicions
that the cause of death might be due to reasons other than electrocution,
prompting P.W.1 to lodge a complaint. In the complaint, it was noted that
P.W.1 had questioned the father of the appellants about the illegal electric
fencing, to which he responded by stating that "what has happened has
happened" and that they would be adequately compensated.
8. It is important to note that in Ex.P.1, there is an insertion of the
word "vdJ" which means that Ramalingam is alleged to have admitted
that the deceased had come into contact with the electric fencing in his
field. However, P.W.23, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, states that
there is a discrepancy in the ink used for this word insertion. This raises
doubts about the authenticity of the statement. Further, the complaint in
this case was lodged with a delay, which further undermines the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
credibility of the prosecution's case. Furthermore, P.W.5, who was
projected as a witness to the Observation Mahazar, did not sign Ex.P.2.
While so, the signatures of P.W.11 and P.W.12, the Village Assistants, are
found on Ex.P.2. These two Village Assistants were present when
Ex.P.16, the confession, is said to have been recorded. Based on this
confession, various items, including Vathanarayanan tree sticks, electric
wire, binding wire, and a ceramic fuse carrier, are claimed to have been
seized.
9. Further, P.W.11 admits that he signed all the documents at the
Police Station. However, it is crucial to note that although Exs.P.2 and P.3
were said to have been recorded on 29.05.2018 and 29.04.2018
respectively, Form-91 did not reach the Court until 15.07.2019, causing a
significant delay in the process. Furthermore, none of the witnesses have
provided any information regarding the formation of the electric fencing
or how it was connected to the electricity switch box. There is no
documentation or recording to support these details.
10. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.13 and Ex.P.7 presents
a different story. P.W.13 states that after seeing the news in Daily Thanthi
two days after the incident, he visited the Police Station, requested the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
report, and examined the scene of the occurrence. Ex.P.7, his drawing,
shows that Service Connection No.216 is registered in the name of
Uthanda Raman, from whom the appellants' father, Ramalingam, is said to
have purchased the property. The Rough Sketch in Ex.P.14, which depicts
the field map with Venugopal's, Ramalingam's paddy fields, three lamp
posts, and a well, does not provide any information on where the fence
was located or how power was drawn. Moreover, none of the witnesses,
including P.W.1 to P.W.9, have mentioned where the power was sourced
from. P.W.13, however, states that the power was drawn through a switch
box and fuse carrier. He also mentions that when he visited the scene of
occurrence, the Police had already seized these articles, but he was not
shown the items and could not confirm how the illegal power was drawn.
Further, the Village Administrative Officer stated that the power was
drawn using a hook, not by manipulating the fuse carrier.
11. The cause of death, as confirmed, is electrocution. P.W.13
admits that there is a low-power line leading to Venugopal's pump set,
which is 15 feet below ground level. Venugopal had reportedly gone to
switch on the motor and was electrocuted. However, it remains unclear
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
whether the electrocution was caused by the low power line to the pump
set or the illegal electric fencing.
12. P.W.1, P.W.6, and other family members of the deceased
confirm that Venugopal had been away the entire night, attending the
village festival, and left for the field around 04:00 a.m. It is likely that he
was not in a normal state and could have been drowsy due to lack of
sleep. His body was found in one location, while his slipper and mobile
phone were found elsewhere. The investigation did not adequately
address these discrepancies, as it is admitted that P.W.6 used the
deceased's mobile phone but no report was made regarding this detail.
13. The investigation appears to have been poorly conducted. There
has been no proper recording of events and materials, and vital materials
were forwarded to the Court with a delay. Furthermore, these materials
were not shown to the relevant experts, and the reports received were not
properly considered. It is also notable that P.W.23 was not the officer
specifically nominated to conduct the investigation under the SC/ST Act.
14. In the light of these anomalies and discrepancies, the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therefore, it would not be just or safe to convict the appellants. Thus, the
prosecution has miserably failed to meet the required burden of proof.
15. The learned counsel for the appellants has fairly submitted that
the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was ordered by this Court on
30.04.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.6219 of 2024, has been paid purely on
humanitarian grounds, in consideration of the loss of life, and is not an
admission of liability or an acknowledgment of guilt by the appellants.
16. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction
recorded and sentence awarded to the appellants, vide Judgment dated
29.02.2024, made in Spl.S.C.No.6 of 2020 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Act, Villupuram, are hereby set aside and
the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. It is
reported that the appellants/accused are on bail. The bail bonds shall
stand terminated/discharged.
Index : Yes/ No 31.01.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
smn2
To
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.The 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 Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thirukoilur Sub Division,
New Kallakurichi District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Arakandanallur Police Station,
Villupuram District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
5.The Criminal Section,
Madras High Court.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2 / vv2
Pre-delivery Judgment in
31.01.2025
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
