Telangana High Court
Chintakayala Janki Ramulu, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 20 October, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1395 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused
aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the I Additional Sessions
Judge, Mahabubnagar, in Spl.C.C.No.31 of 2008, dated
10.11.2010, convicting the accused for the offence punishable
under Sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and a
fine of Rs.1,000/-.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused
the record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.03.2008, the
appellant had erected a J-wire around his groundnut crop
situated in the limits of Gatla Khanapur village by supplying
power directly from electric pole, without permission of the
electricity department and without taking any precautions,
endangering the human life. On the very same day, the deceased
one N.Raju came into contact with the said electric live wire and
got electrocuted and died.
4. A complaint was filed before the police for which reason the
case was investigated and police filed charge sheet for the offence
under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and Section 139 of
the Electricity Act.
5. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section
304-A and 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and 139 of the
Electricity Act. However, the appellant was acquitted for the
offence under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and Section
139 of the Electricity Act. After the evidence of witnesses, an
additional charge under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code was
also framed by the learned Sessions Judge. Having concluded the
trial and considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions
found the appellant guilty under Sections 304-A and 338 of the
Indian Penal Code..
6. The Police had conducted panchanama in the place where
the dead body was found. It is not in dispute that the land belongs
to the appellant herein and at the time of scene of offence
panchanama it was found that a live wire was erected around his
fields.
7. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.1, 3, 5, 6,
to suggest that the appellant was not complicit of erecting a live
wire illegally. Though the said wire was erected around his land to
protect the land from pests, such act of the appellant cannot be
condoned. More so, in the background of the deceased come into
contact with the live wire, precious human life had come to an
end. Keeping in view that the accused had no intention to cause
any harm to any person however, wanted to protect his field from
pest, a live wire was erected in the night. The appellant is an
agriculturist and there are no other criminal offences pending
against him. Further the alleged incident happened 15 years ago.
In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the
sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone under
Section 304 A and 338 of Indian Penal Code.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed reducing
the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________
K.SURENDER, J
Dt:20.10.2022
tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1395 OF 2010
Dt. 20.10.2022
tk
