Mukchund Ram Rajwade Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

CRA No.356 of 2016

¶3

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.11 17:58:49 +0530

¶4

2025:CGHC:31973

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 356 of 2016

¶8

Mukchund Ram Rajwade S/o Late Raghunathram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Chitabahar, Chhuhipara, Police Station - Darima, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Darima, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board

¶15

10.07.2025

¶16

This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of

¶17

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is

¶18

2

¶19

directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.03.2016, passed by the learned Special Judge of the Court (Electricity Act), Ambikapur, District Surguja has convicted the appellant Under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine 3 months SI.

¶20

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.07.2014, by illegal hooking of electricity, the appellant was irrigating the crops through pump, at that time, the deceased Vinod Kumar Minj was grazing his cattle. The cattle came in canal for drinking water and entangled in the electric wire and the deceased Vinod Kumar Minj while saving the cattle came under the influence of electric current and died.

¶21

Panchnama, inspection report etc. were prepared at the spot map Ex. P-6. After completing the formalities an F.I.R. (Ex.P-11) was lodged and investigation has been done. In the course of investigation, the documents were seized and 161 Cr.P.C. statements were recorded from the witnesses and after completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

¶22

The trial court has framed charges against the appellant for the aforementioned offence and the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶23

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied the

¶24

3

¶25

material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Trial court, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, was not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforesaid offence. He would further submit that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses and their statements are not duly corroborated with each other. He further submits that the deceased died on account of coming into contact of electric pole and there is no prove that the appellant was using the electricity by way of illegal hooking, therefore, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

¶27

On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that there are sufficient evidence available on record to hold that the appellant his guilty for the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment against the appellant which does not require for any interference.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶29

4

¶30

The question for consideration is whether the accused was irrigating his field by illegally hooking pump from the electric pole and the deceased while saving her cattle died by getting stuck in it?

¶31

PW- 4 namely Jeetu Ram who is cousin of the deceased stated in his statement that when he reached the place of incident he saw the deceased lying on the floor and thereafter he called the ambulance and police. He further stated that he has no knowledge about the death of his cousin. He also stated that near the place of incident there was a electricity pole. He also stated that he has not seen how many pumps were at the place of incident and who was using the pumps.

¶32

PW- 6 namely Sukhdev stated that he know the deceased and the deceased is his nephew. He stated that he was grazing his buffalo at the place of the incident and he saw the deceased getting stuck to the wire and dying. He in his cross examination has stated that he had no knowledge who has illegally hooked the wire from the electric pole due to which the deceased died. He has also stated that he has not told the police that the deceased died by sticking to the wire.

¶33

PW-9 Budhkunwar stated that the deceased is her brother-in-law. She stated in her examination-in-chief that at the time of incident she was at the ghat and she saw that the deceased was providing water to cattle in the river and died by coming in contact with the electric wire. However, in cross-examination at para 7 she stated that when one person of Chhuipara informed about the incident she went to place of incident and saw the dead body of deceased.

¶34

5

¶35

PW-11 R.B. Sahu stated that he is posted as Junior Engineer on 14.07.14, an application was sent by the Police Station In-charge Darima for giving an investigation report regarding catch/illegal connection in Marg K48/14. After receiving the application, he sent a written report to the Police Station In-charge Darima on 15.07.14. The report is Ex.P.09. He had gone to the spot to investigate on 14.07.14 at 5 pm after receiving the letter from the Darima police station. He further stated that when he went to the spot for inspection he did not see the accused using electricity by illegal hooking. He further stated that it is wrong to say that in the report Ex.P.09, the accused has illegally hooked the low tension electric line and connected it to the field through Champa Nala.

¶36

After going through the evidence, it is evident that the deceased died due to electrocution, but his death was due to electrocution from the wire which was illegally hooked by the accused for irrigating his farms has not been proved, as the PW-11 namely R.B. Sahu, who is the employee of the Electricity Department, stated that no illegal hooking was found at the place of incident and further none of the witness stated that they saw the appellant/ accused hooking illegal wire and neither they saw deceased dying due to illegal wire, which was allegedly used by the appellant for irrigating the crop.

¶37

For the foregoing reasons mentioned above, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court are set aside.

¶38

The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not

¶39

6

¶40

discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal appeal is allowed .

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶43

Gowri/ Jyoti

Mukchund Ram Rajwade v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukchund Ram Rajwade v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Mittal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwar Shrivas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Yalamanchili Kamala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pratik Kumar Jaisawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rampyari Vs State of Chhattisgarh