JUDGMENT G.S. Solanki, J. 1. Appellant/Defendant No. 1 has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 16.10.1995 passed by Additional District Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in Civil Suit No. 18-B/1988. 2. The brief facts of the case are that deceased Mukesh was son of Respondent No. 1 and brother of Respondents (2) No. 2,3 and 4. On 15.12.1986 Bittu @ Mukesh Rai and Respondent No. 6 Madan Rai, took deceased Mukesh to the garden of Appellant, where electric barbed wire fencing was done by Mahesh and Bittu for the purpose of safety of their garden and when Mahesh came in the contact with the wire, he died on the spot due to electrocution. 3. According to the Plaintiffs, deceased Mukesh was a brilliant student and in spare time, he used to sit in tea stall and used to earn a sum of Rs. 20-25 per day. It was further pleaded that Mukesh died due to negligence of Respondents No. 1 and 2 as they negligently flowed electric current in the barbed fencing wire. 4. Respondents denied the allegation made in the plaint and pleaded that a criminal case under Section 304A of the IPC is pending in the Court of JMFC, Khurai and till the decision of criminal case, they could not be held responsible. 5. The learned trial Court on appraisal of evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 35,000/-against the Appellant. Being aggrieved thereby the instant appeal has been preferred by Appellant/Defendant No. 1. 6. Learned Counsel for Appellant has submitted that the trial Court committed error in not appreciating the evidence on record in it's proper perspective. He has further submitted that deceased was a trespasser and is (3) not liable to be protected in any manner. He has further submitted that the trial Court awarded exorbitant compensation and has prayed for setting aside the impugned award. 7. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7 has submitted that the trial Court exonerated the Electricity Board, therefore, he has supported the finding recorded by the trial Court. 8. I have perused the impugned award, evidence recorded and other material on record. It is true that documents filed by Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 7. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7 has submitted that the trial Court exonerated the Electricity Board, therefore, he has supported the finding recorded by the trial Court. 8. I have perused the impugned award, evidence recorded and other material on record. It is true that documents filed by Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were not exhibited before trial Court and trial Court arrived at the conclusion on the basis of oral evidence and evidence of photographer Harikant Shrivastava (PW-3). 9. Vimla Bai (PW-1), mother of Mukesh categorically deposed that on receiving the information that her son Mukesh suffered electric shock in the garden of Appellant, she immediately rushed to the place of incident where Bittu @ Mukesh Rai and Madan Rai were also standing. She further stated that there was crowd, then she immediately rushed to the hospital where Doctor declared Mukesh as brought dead. She further stated that she saw wire fencing in the garden. She further deposed that Respondent Madan informed her that switch of connecting wire was put off. Her statement was supported by Awadh Kishore (PW-2), who stated that he also went to the (4) place of incident where he found Mukesh died due to electric shock. He further deposed that he also rushed to the hospital along with body of Mukesh where Doctor declared Mukesh as brought dead. 10. Dr. R. Saxena (PW-4) has performed the autopsy on the dead body of Mukesh. He opined that Mukesh died due to asphyxia, due to respiratory failure due to electric shock. His post-mortem report is Ex. (P-8). Harikant Shrivastava (PW-3), Photographer categorically deposed that he took photographs of the garden of Appellant Mahesh where he found electric wires at the boundary of the garden. Photographs are Ex. (P-12), (P-13) and (P-14). This witness further stated on the basis of photographs that electric wires can be seen in the photographs Ex. (P-12). These electric wires came from the house of Appellant Mahesh, which can be seen in Ex.(P-14). He had been cross-examined but nothing could be brought out in his cross examination as to disbelieve this witness. Photographs Ex. (P-12), (P-13) and (P-14) show that said electric wires were running from the house of Appellant Mahesh to the boundary of his garden. 11. He had been cross-examined but nothing could be brought out in his cross examination as to disbelieve this witness. Photographs Ex. (P-12), (P-13) and (P-14) show that said electric wires were running from the house of Appellant Mahesh to the boundary of his garden. 11. In these circumstances, the finding recorded by the trial Court on the basis of evidence of Vimla Bai (PW-1), Awadh Kishore (PW-2) and Harikant Shrivastava (PW-3) cannot be said to be erroneous. Statements of eye witnesses were duly corroborated by medical evidence of (5) Dr. R. Saxena (PW-4) and his report Ex. (P-8). These facts are further supported by admission of Mahesh Rai (DW-1), Appellant that a criminal case under Section of IPC along with violation of rules of Electricity Act, is pending in the criminal Court at Bina, District Sagar. 12. On the basis of above mentioned evidence, I am also of the view that Appellant Mahesh Rai negligently flowed the electric current in the barbed wires of boundary of his garden and trial Court has rightly found him liable to pay compensation on account of death of Mukesh. 13. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, considering the age of deceased Mukesh, he was only 16 years of age and was a student, thus compensation of Rs. 35,000/- cannot be said to be exorbitant. 14. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Advocates' fee as per schedule or as per certificate (whichever is less). 15. Decree be drawn accordingly.