Kanhaiya Mastake Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Kanhaiya Mastake Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-framing order dated 12.12.2025 (charges under Section 105 Part-II of BNS, 2023 and Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003) was liable to be set aside in revision, i.e., whether the offences were prima facie made out against the applicant.

Court's answer

On examination of the charge-sheet and evidence compiled therein, it prima facie reveals that the accused/applicant had knowledge that the electricity connection obtained through illegal hooking from a transformer posed a likelihood of causing death to any person coming into contact with it.

Ratio / Principle

No perversity, illegality, or inconsistency was found in the order of the Special Judge, Electricity Act 2003, Bemetara dated 12.12.2025; accordingly the charge-framing order required no interference.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR No. 403 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Single Bench (Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal), decision dated 20/03/2026 — Revision preferred under Sections 438 r/w Section 442 of BNSS by Kanhaiya Mastake against the order dated 12.12.2025 of the Learned Special Judge, Electricity Act 2003, Bemetara, framing charges under Section 105 Part-II of BNS, 2023 and Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The allegation was that the applicant committed an offence by making an illegal electrical connection (hooking from a transformer), leading to a person's death, and by committing electricity theft. Counsel for the applicant argued that the post-mortem report indicated accidental death, that there was no material showing knowledge that the PVC cable would snap or the fencing become energised, and that the offence was at most under Section 304-A of IPC; the offence under Section 135(1)(a) Electricity Act was also said to be not prima facie made out. The State opposed the revision. Held: upon examination of the charge-sheet and evidence compiled therein, it prima facie revealed that the accused/applicant had knowledge that the electricity connection obtained through illegal hooking posed a likelihood of causing death to any person coming into contact with it; no perversity, illegality or inconsistency was found in the Special Judge's order dated 12.12.2025; the revision was dismissed at motion stage itself.

1

2026:CGHC:13416

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 403 of 2026

Kanhaiya Mastake S/o Shri Bhagela Mastake Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Banranka, Post Office Tipni P.S. Thankhamariya, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Thana Thankhamariya, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Respondent/ State)

2 - Mannuram Kashyap S/o Bhurva Kashyap Aged About 60 Years Village Banranka, Police Station - Thankhamariya, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Complainant Not Been Impleaded As A Party Before The Sessions Court)

... Respondents

(Cause-title is taken from CIS)

For Applicant : Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

20/03/2026

1 . The present revision under Sections 438 R/w Section 442 of BNSS has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Electricity Act 2003, Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) whereby the charges under Section 105 Part-II of BNS, 2023 and Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 have been framed against the applicant.

2 . The applicant allegedly committed an offense under Section 105 Part-II of BNS and Section 135(1)(a) of Electricity Act by making an illegal

2

electrical connection, leading to a person's death, and committing electricity theft.

3 . The applicant's counsel submits that the post-mortem report indicates the death was accidental. There is no allegation that the applicant had knowledge that the PVC cable would snap and there is no material to suggest that the fencing would become energized, therefore, no offence under Section 105 Part-II of BNS can be made out against the applicant. The offense at most would fall under Section 304-A of IPC. He further submits that the offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act also prima facie not made out against the applicant. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Bemetara may be set aside.

4 . Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the revision.

5 . I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the revision including the impugned order.

6 . Upon examination of the charge-sheet and the evidence compiled therein, it prima facie reveals that the accused/applicant had knowledge that the electricity connection obtained by him through illegal hooking from a transformer posed a likelihood of causing death to any person coming into contact with it. Therefore, I find no perversity, illegality, or inconsistency in the order of learned Special Judge, Electricity Act 2003, Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) passed on 12.12.2025.

7 . Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Shubham