Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2691 (MAD)

Vinoth v. State by The Inspector of Police

2014-08-18

C.T.SELVAM

body2014
Judgment 1. Petitioner challenges the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur, passed in C.C.No.463 of 2004 on 13.11.2008. 2. Upon the complaint of the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.111 of 2003 on the file of the first respondent for offences under Section 304 and 379 IPC and Section 39(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, was registered. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed informing commission of offences under Section 39(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 304-A IPC and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.463 of 2004 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur. The prosecution case was that the accused had put up electrical fencing in their fields by illegally tapping electricity. On 20.04.2003, at about 10.30 p.m., the deceased Arjunan went in search of his stray cow in the field of the accused and upon touching the fence, he was electrocuted. 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses, marked twelve exhibits and six material objects. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. 4. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court rendered a finding of acquittal. Against such finding, the present criminal revision has been filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 6. The trial Court found that though the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW-11, a witness and PW-14, Assistant Electrical Engineer, to prove the alleged theft of electricity by the accused, PW-11, has turned hostile and PW-14 had deposed in chief as well as in the cross examination that neither was there any proof of theft of electricity nor was there electrical fencing in the field of the accused. On the above finding, the trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of offences under Section 39(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 304-A IPC. This Court finds no error in the judgment under challenge. 7. This Criminal Revision shall stand dismissed.