Judgment :- This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellants/A1 to A4 against the order dated 14. 2006 passed in SC.No.2/2006 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Namakkal, convicting and sentencing the 1st Appellant (a) for the offence under Section 304(2) of IPC to under go 5 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment and (b) for the offence under Section 201 of IPC to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to under go 1 month Simple Imprisonment and the Appellants/A1 to A4, for the offence under Section 201 of IPC to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment each. 2. The case of the Prosecution is as follows:- a. On information furnished by PW.2 Kasi, Village Menial of Mathurutu Village to PW.2 Ganesan, the Village Administrative Officer that A1 had passed live electric connection to the fence around his lands in S.No.254/4 in order to safeguard his crops from wild pigs and bandicoot [bgUr;fhsp) from service connection in S.NO.566 and on 110. 2004 the deceased in an intoxicated condition had fallen on the live electric fence, got electrocuted and died on the spot and the A1 to A4 had cremated the body of the deceased without informing others, PW.1 lodged a complaint with the Mangapuram Police Station. b. On receipt of the complaint, PW.11, Sub Inspector of Police prepared FIR Ex.P17 and the PW.12 Inspector of Police took up the case for further investigation and visited the place of occurrence and through PW.7 Photographer took photographs and prepared observation mahazar and rough plan Ex.P18 in the presence of the witnesses and seized Mos.1 to 5 under a cover of mahazar and conducted inquest in the presence of panchayatars and recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, filed the final report against the 1stAppellant for the offences under Section 304(2) of IPC and against the Appellants for the offence under Section 201, 176 read with 34 of IPC and filed the final report. 3. The case was taken on file in SC.No.2/2007 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Namakkal and necessary charges were framed. 3. The case was taken on file in SC.No.2/2007 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Namakkal and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and also relied on Exs.P1 to P22 and 5 Material Objects. 4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same as totally false. .5. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available, found the accused/appellants guilty and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal. 6. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the material records placed. 7. The entire case rests on the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 who are the Village Menial and the Village Administrative Officer. PW.5 who is said to be the grandson of the deceased had stated that his grandfather/deceased was a alcoholic and he came to know that he died only due to excess consumption of alcohol. He did not support the Prosecution and denied knowledge about the contents made in the inquest report. Though PW.3 had spoken to the fact that some bones were seized from the cremation ground on 210. 2004 under a cover of mahazar, but denied the fact that MO.4 and Mo.5 iron and electric wires were seized on the confession given by the Appellants. The other witness PW.4 totally denied the factum of being a witness to the seizure of bones and iron and electric wires. 8. Another important witness PW.6 Wireman working in the Singilian Kombai Branch though admitted that an electric connection was given to the Appellant in S.C.No.566, but denied having heard that the Appellants had passed a live electric connection to the fence which snatched the life of an aged man when he accidentally fell on it. He has stated that he came to know the above incident only after he received summons from the court for giving evidence. He has categorically stated that he was not examined by the investigating officer. .9. He has stated that he came to know the above incident only after he received summons from the court for giving evidence. He has categorically stated that he was not examined by the investigating officer. .9. In the above factual scenario, the only evidence that was relied upon by the Prosecution to prove its case is that of PWs.1 and 2. Admittedly, PW.1 came to know about the said fact only through PW.2 the Village Menial. PW.2 has informed him only on 20.10.2004, although the occurrence had taken place on 110. 2004. PW.2 has got information through public and none of them had been examined by the investigating officer. Usually the Village Menial will be available in the local village and if anything abnormal or untoward incident takes place, he would come to know immediately, but PW.2s evidence indicates that till 110. 2004 he did not receive any information about the said incident. He had passed on information on 110. 2004 at 5.00 p.m. but PW.1 says that he was informed by PW.2 only on 20.10.2004 at 11.00 a.m. PW.1 has said that he did not see any wire or iron line around the thottam on his inspection on 20.10.2004. 10. The defence was that the deceased died not due to electrocution, but due to consumption of heavy alcohol. Since it was a natural death, as he had no one to perform the last rites, his body was buried by the Villagers. There is absolutely no evidence to show that anyone had seen the deceased near the land of the 1stAppellant. There is also no evidence to show that the thottam of the 1stAppellant was connected with live electric wire at any time either before or at the time of the incident. Nothing was elicited from PW.6 the wiremen in his cross examination to suspect his testimony that he was not coming out with the truth. Merely on the photographs showing that there was traces of removal of wire, it cannot be held that the fence was connected with live electric wires. 11. None of the Villagers have been examined by the investigating officer to show that the Appellants have cremated the body of the deceased. There is no explanation from the investigating officer for not examining the villagers in relation to this incident. 11. None of the Villagers have been examined by the investigating officer to show that the Appellants have cremated the body of the deceased. There is no explanation from the investigating officer for not examining the villagers in relation to this incident. It is also to be seen that there was no complaint either from the villagers or from the relatives of the deceased. In fact, PW.5 the grandson of the deceased has deposed that the deceased died due to consumption of excess alcohol. 12. There must be some cogent evidence to bring home the charges against the Appellants and in the absence of any evidence, the Appellants cannot be convicted for the offences alleged against them. The Trial Court has placed reliance only on the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and the finding of the Trial Court in that perspective stands totally misplaced resulting in utter perversity. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants by the Trial Court cannot be sustained 13. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in SC.No.2/2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Namakkal are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The bail bond if any executed by the appellant shall stand terminated and the fine amount if any paid is ordered to be refunded to them.