[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Rajendran vs State Represented By on 26 February, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A.No.711 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 27.01.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.02.2026
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.711 of 2019 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14825 & 14824 of 2019
1. Rajendran
2. Jeyakumar ...Appellants
Vs.
State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Gingee Division,
Villupuram District
Representing Sathyamangalam Police Station,
Sathiyamangalam. ...Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to set aside
the judgment dated 16.09.2019 made in Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2016 by the
learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases, Villupuram, by
allowing this appeal.
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
Crl.A.No.711 of 2019
For Appellants : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Udayakumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
*****
JUDGMENT
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed by A1 & A2 to set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them in Spl.S.C.No.73
of 2016 dated 16.09.2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for
SC/ST Act Cases, Villupuram.
2 The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Mani on
06.02.2014 watered the land, which was cultivated by him and on the next
day early morning at about 4.00 a.m. while he went to water the same land,
died due to electrocution, since A1 erected an iron fencing giving electric
connection from the pump set belonged to A2. On the next day when P.W.1
woke up, her husband was not at the home and at about 8.30 a.m. P.W.8
Nagaraj called her and told that her husband died in the canal near the land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
belonged to A1 Rajendiran. P.W.1 went to the place of occurrence and there
she saw that the first appellant/A1 erected iron fencing and given electric
connection from the Pumpset belonged to the second appellant/A2 and the
deceased died due to electric shock. Therefore P.W.1 made complaint before
the Sathiyamangalam Police Station, Sathiyamangalam, Gingee, which was
marked as Ex.P1.
2.1 On receipt of the complaint Ex.P1, P.W.19, the Special Sub
Inspector of Police, Sathiyamangalam Police Station, registered an FIR in
Cr.No.7 of 2014 and sent the same to P.W.20, who was the Inspector of
Police(In-charge) of the Sathiyamangalam Police Station and P.W.20
conducted further investigation and handed over the case to P.W.21, who is
the Inspector of Police, Sathiyamangalam Police Station. P.W.21, on coming
to know that the deceased belonged to suppressed community, altered the
charges including the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, and handed over
the case to P.W.22, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee
Sub Division. P.W.22 after completing investigation, filed charge sheet,
which was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
3 Before the trial Court, in order to prove the charges, prosecution
examined 22 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 22 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1
to 15, besides two material objects M.Os.1 and 2.
4 On completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses,
incriminating materials were culled out from the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and put before the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and
they denied the same as false. On the side the defence, no oral evidence was
let in and two documents were marked as Exs.D1 and D2.
5 The learned Sessions Judge, after trial and hearing the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, by judgement
dated 16.09.2019, found both the appellants/A1 & A2 guilty for the offence
under Section 304(ii) IPC and since the deceased belonged to suppressed
community, invoked the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA)
Amendment Act, 2015 and convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015, sentenced
them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months
and directed the appellants/A1 & A2 to pay Rs.50,000/- each to the defacto
complainant P.W.1, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further
period of six months. The learned trial Judge ordered the sentence to run
concurrently.
6 Aggrieved over the said judgment of conviction and sentence,
the appellants are before this Court with the present Criminal Appeal.
7 Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants would submit that this is the case, where there was no eye witness
to the occurrence and the whole case rest upon the circumstantial evidence
relied upon by the prosecution to record conviction for the alleged offences
under Sections 304(ii) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment
Act, 2015. The circumstantial evidence is not pointing only to the
circumstances that the accused alone are guilty of the alleged offences and
the possibility of committing offences by other persons is not ruled out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
7.1 The alleged electricity connection said to have been taken from
the second appellant’s pump set, in fact belongs to one Kumaresan, was not
examined by the prosecution to speak about the fact that the second
appellant was doing agricultural operation in that land.
7.2 P.W.13 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body
of the deceased, had not conclusively offered his opinion about the cause of
death. P.W.13 was not able to say how the electricity connection passed
through which part of the body of the deceased and caused the burn injuries.
Therefore the cause of death itself is doubtful.
7.3 The deceased did not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribes and in such a case, the trial Court ought not to have invoked the
provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act. To invoke Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
Amendment Act, prosecution must prove that the victim is belongs to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes community and the offence has been
committed against him on basis that such person belongs to suppressed
community. In the case on hand prosecution has failed to prove the above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
ingredients to invoke Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act.
Prosecution failed to prove as to why the deceased has to cross through the
land of the first appellant, when the witnesses have clearly stated the
deceased can reach his cultivating land without crossing the first appellant’s
land.
7.4 The learned Senior Counsel further contended that in the
appellant’s land there is no fodder cultivation or any root vegetables which
would attract the pigs makes the appellant to put up live wire fence to
protect the crops from pigs and hence there is no necessity for the appellant
to put up live wire fencing on his land. Further as per the evidence of
prosecution witnesses the alleged fencing was put up only on one side and
not around the land and hence it is clear that it cannot be for the purpose as
alleged by the prosecution.
7.5 Further in this case as per the story of the prosecution the
deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste and in such case, as per the
provisions of Rule 7(1) of SC/ST Act, the investigation has to be done by the
police office, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, but in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
the present case, the investigation was done only by the Inspector of Police,
which is not proper. As per Rule 7(2) of SC/ST Act, investigation has to be
completed within 30 days of the registration of the case and in the instant
case FIR was registered on 07.02.2024 and final report was filed only on
08.11.2024 after the period of 9 months, which violates the rules enumerated
under the Act.
7.6 Therefore at any angle prosecution has not proved its case
beyond all reasonable doubts especially when the case is solely based on the
circumstantial evidence, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its
case beyond all reasonable doubts, which is lacking in the present case.
Therefore the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial
Court is liable to be dismissed. In support of the contentions, the appellants
relied on the following judgemnts.
1) AIR 1964 Supreme Court 205 (Cherubin Gregory Vs. State of Bihar)
2) 1984 CRI.L.J.1038 (Benoy Chandra Dey Vs. The State and another)
3) AIR 2000 Supre Court 1876 (Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs.
State of Maharashtra)
4) 1992 CRI.L.J2397 (Kalaji alias Keshaji Vs. The State of Gujarat)
5) (20078) 6 SCC 528 (Dilip S.Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co.Ltd.,
and another)
6) (2010) 6 SCC 230 (K.Abbas H.S.A. Vs. Sabu Joseph and another
7) (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl.)241 (Paranjothi Vs. State rep. By the Deputy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
Superintendent of Police, Erode)
8) (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl.) 865 (Irusappan Vs. State rep by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Villupuram).
8 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent police would submit that P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. The
appellants put up wire fencing and gave electric connection illegally from
the pump set situated in the second appellant’s land, in order to prevent the
cattle entering into his grassland. The deceased was cultivating the land of
one Mannureddiyar, which is situated next to the first appellant’s land and
when the deceased, in the early morning, went for watering his land, nearby
the appellant’s land, where he put up wire fencing, the deceased got electric
shock and died on the spot. P.W.14, who is one of the villagers, while he
went to cut banana leaf in the first appellant’s pump set, saw someone was
lying on the canal. He informed P.W.7 and P.W.7 informed P.W.8. P.W.8
informed the same to P.W1, who is the wife of the deceased and who set law
into motion, had lodged complaint Ex.P1.
8.1 P.W.19, on receipt of Ex.P1 complaint, registered an FIR in
Cr.No.7 of 2014 for the offence under Section 304 IPC and the printed copy
of the FIR has been marked as Ex.P7. P.W.20, who was the Inspector of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
Police (Incharge), Sathiyamangalam Police Station, had taken further
investigation by preparing Observation Mahazar, Rough Sketch, Recovery
Mahazar and Inquest Report. Thereafter he handed over the case to P.W.21,
who was the Inspector of Police, Sathiyamangalam Police Station and he
altered the charges, since the victim belongs to suppressed community and
sent request to appoint an Investigating Officer not below the rank of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, since provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act, has
been invoked. Thereafter P.W.22, who was the Deputy Superintendent of
Police took the case for further investigation and after completing
investigation, filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 304 IPC r/w
Section 39(1) Electricity Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989.
8.2 On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 22 were examined, out
of which, P.W.1 is wife, P.W.2 is father, P.W.3 is relative, P.W.4 is son of the
deceased and P.Ws.5 to 10 are relatives and villagers of the deceased and
they have spoken about death of the deceased and they all categorically
deposed that the deceased died due to electric shock near the first appellant’s
land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
8.3 The first appellant only put up iron wire fencing and gave
electric connection to the same from the pump set in the second appellant’s
land. The deceased was cultivating the adjacent land and when he went to
water his land, nearing the fencing, he got electric shock and due to which
he died on the spot.
8.4 P.W.13, the Doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of
the deceased had noted burn injuries on the body of the deceased and stated
that the same shall be caused due to electric shock.
8.5 P.W.15, who was an Assistant Engineer (Electrical), TNEB
deposed that the Wireman called him and informed that there was fencing
near Agriculture Electric Service Connection No.85 pump set and one
person died due to electric shock and he went to the place of occurrence and
saw that there was electric wire connection in the fencing from the fuse
carrier in the pump set and the deceased found dead near the fencing.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
8.6 Therefore from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
prosecution has proved that the first appellant put up iron wire fencing and
illegally gave electric connection to the same and when the deceased crossed
nearby the fencing, he got electric shock and due to which, he died on the
spot.
8.7 The trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and rightly convicted the appellants, which does not call for any
interference of this Court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent police and perused
the materials available on record.
10 Admittedly in this case, there is no eye witness and the case is
based on the circumstantial evidence. It is true that when the case is based
on the circumstantial evidence, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to
prove the cardinal principles of last seen theory, motive and recovery.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
11 In this case P.W.1, who is none other than the wife of the
deceased, in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that
the second appellant demanded the land, which was leased out to the
deceased, in which, he was cultivating crops, and the owner of the land
refused the same. Further P.W.1 deposed that one Anand Reddiyar told
Mannu Reddiyar that the land should not be leased out to the suppressed
community.
12 Further P.W.1 deposed that she gave food to the deceased on the
previous day at 9.00 p.m. and thereafter when she woke up at 4.00 a.m. he
was not in the house. Thereafter at 8.30 a.m. Nagaraj, who was examined as
P.W.8 called her through phone and informed that her husband died near the
canal. She immediately went to the place of occurrence and saw that electric
connection had been given illegally to the wire fencing put up in the land of
the first appellant and her husband died near the canal, due to electric shock.
13 P.W.2, who is the father of the deceased deposed that the first
appellant had put up wire fencing in his land and one Raja shouted that there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
was electric connection and he jumped there and none of us went near the
fencing.
14 P.W.3, one of the villagers deposed that when he was at home,
he heard that the deceased had died and he saw one injury in the shoulder
and both legs of the deceased. P.W.4 son of the deceased even though turned
hostile, has stated that one Nagarajan informed him about the death of the
deceased and there was wire fencing in the land of the first appellant with
electric connection. Further in the statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, he has clearly deposed that his mother
told him that the second appellant Jeyakumar demanded the land, in which
they were cultivating, but Mannureddiyar, who is the owner of the land
refused the same. Further there was wire fencing on the land of the first
appellant, which was given electric supply and the deceased died due to
electric shock and her mother got doubt in the death of the deceased.
15 P.W.5, who is the relative of the deceased deposed that while
her husband was going for work, he was informed that the deceased died and
she went to Government Hospital where the deceased was taken and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
thereafter she met P.W.1, who told her that she had been revenged and the
appellants had given electric connection to the fencing put up on the first
appellant’s land.
16 P.W.6, who is also a relative of the deceased deposed that on
07.02.2014 he was informed that the deceased died near the canal on the first
appellant’s land. He went to the place of occurrence and saw that the
deceased lying dead in the canal. At the corner of the canal, he saw a wire
had been fenced and he also saw that electricity supply was given from the
Motor Room situated in the second appellant’s land through a wire and none
was allowed to go near the fencing.
17 P.W.7, who is one of the villagers, has deposed that he was
informed that the deceased died near the first appellant’s land. He informed
the occurrence to the Nagarajan P.W.8. and thereafter villagers assembled
there. He further deposed that near the fodder grass, as the cattle should not
eat it, a fencing had been put up and he stumbled and fell down, however
nothing happened to him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
18 P.W.8, in consonance with the evidence of P.W.7 deposed that
on 07.02.2014, when he was at the shop in the morning, Nehru and Raja
came and told him that Mani was lying dead near the well. One Indrani was
currently out of town and her son-in-law has cow fodder grass next to the
well. He took his bike and went to see, where Mani was lying dead. There
was a wire on the side of the canal where water is being poured and his
motorbike key, which had been kept in the Bike got burnt due to the electric
power and hence he alerted all not to go there.
19 P.W.9 clearly deposed that on receiving the information, he
went and saw the deceased lying dead and he found injuries on both the legs
of the deceased and there was a wire tied to small sticks on the side of the
road, which had been electrified. P.W.10, who is a relative of the deceased
also deposed that he heard about the death of the deceased.
20 P.W.11, who is Village Administrative Officer deposed that on
07.02.2014, his Village Assistant one Munusamy P.W.12 came and informed
that one Mani was lying dead on the land of Rajendran and they both went to
that place, where there was a Well on Rajendran's land and the deceased was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
found dead near the canal and there was a cow fodder field next to it. P.W.12
deposed in consonance with the evidence of P.W.11.
21 P.W.13 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of
the deceased deposed that she found one burn injury on the back side of the
right hand 20 × 20 cm 2nd degree, due to an electric shock, other burn injury
6 x 6 cm 2nd degree on the back of the right knee and third burn injury 10 ×
20 cm 3rd degree on the back of the left knee.
22 P.W.14 one of the villagers deposed that while he went to cut
banana leaf, he saw someone lying near the Rajendran’s land and he
informed P.W.7 Raja. Thereafter he heard that the deceased was found dead
near the Rajendran’s land. P.W.15, who is the Assistant Engineer (Electrical)
TNEB, deposed that the Wireman one Elumalai informed him that a person
had been electrocuted and died due to the electric fence installed from the
service connection No. 85. He saw that a light red electric wire had been
taken from the fuse carrier to the electric fence. A person was found dead in
the canal nearby. Immediately power supply was shut down from
transformer No. SS4, which had provided electric power and he also
recovered Rs.1500/- the loss caused to TNEB.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
23 P.W.16, is the RDO, who issued certificates certifying the
communities of the deceased and the appellants, which shows that the
deceased belongs to suppressed community and the appellants are not
members of SC/ST community.
24 P.W.17 is the Valuation Officer in the Superintending Engineer's
Office in Villupuram and he deposed that on 07.02.2014, the Wireman
Ezhumalai spoke to the Assistant Electrical Engineer over phone that a
person named Mani from Manalappadi village had died due to electric
shock. He went to place of occurrence and saw that from the service
connection number 85 on SS4, a white and red twisted wire from the fuse
carrier belonging to Kumaresan was connected to the wire fencing. The
deceased Mani, was found dead near canal. After the inspection, the
Assistant Electrical Engineer called the Wireman Ezhumalai, and instructed
him to cut off the electricity at the transformer at SS4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
25 Therefore from the evidence of the above witnesses, it is crystal
clear that the appellants illegally took electric connection and connected the
same to the wire fencing put up on the first appellant’s land and when the
deceased went near the wire fencing he got electric shock and succumbed to
the same. This Court, as an appellate court, being a final Court of fact
finding, while re-appreciating the entire evidence, finds that the prosecution
has proved its case with cogent evidence.
26 Even though the circumstantial evidence has to be established
without any break of chain, in all the cases, it cannot be meticulously
proved. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of circumstances which can be
relied upon not as proving a fact directly but instead as pointing to its
existence.
27 Apart from claiming ignorance and denying the various
incriminating evidence presented during the trial, the appellants chose not to
adduce any evidence to explain their innocence. Thus, their silence and
failure to explain any of the incriminatory circumstances, would strengthen
the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence against them as
proved by the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
28 In this regard, we may also refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court rendered in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681, wherein, it was held that
where the circumstantial evidence forms the basis of a case, where no
eyewitness account is available, and when the incriminating circumstances
are put to the accused, if the accused does not offer any explanation or the
explanation that is found to be false, it provides an additional link to the
chain of circumstances as observed in para 21 of the aforesaid decision
which reads as follows:
“21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no
eyewitness account is available, there is another principle
of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that
when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused
and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers
an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same
becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to
make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of
decisions of this Court.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
29 While the accused is not obligated to answer the questions put
to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and still can maintain his silence or deny
the evidence, yet silence, evasive or wrong answers to the questions put by
the court provides a perspective to the court in properly evaluating the
incriminating materials which have been brought forth by the prosecution by
drawing necessary inference including an adverse one. Examination of an
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. will enable the accused to prepare and
strategize his defence. He will have all the opportunities to discredit any
prosecution witness or question any evidence through the tool of cross
examination. He will thereafter have the opportunity to lead his defence
evidence, if any. In the present case, despite the incriminating evidence
which has come up against the appellants has been pointed out to them by
the Court, they have not explained any of these but merely denied or feigned
ignorance to which necessary inference can be drawn against them.
Therefore we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of
conviction recorded by the trial Court. There is no quarrel with the settled
propositions cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, but in criminal
case, each and every case has to be decided on its own merits, depending on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
the facts and circumstances and those decisions are not applicable to the
present case on hand.
30 In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. The trial
Court is directed to secure the appellants to undergo remaining period of
imprisonment, if any.
[PVJ] [MJRJ]
26.02.2026
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation case: Yes/no
cgi
To
1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases, Villupuram,
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee Division,
Villupuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN. J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
cgi
Pre-Delivery Judgement in
Crl.A.No.711 of 2019 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14825 & 14824 of 2019
26.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 04:57:20 pm )
