JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused challenging the Judgment of the Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai, dated 31.01.2014 in S.C.No.93 of 2008 convicting and sentencing the appellants/accused 1 to 4 to undergo 10 years RI each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence under Section 304 (ii) IPC; to undergo 1 year RI each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to undergo 3 months SI for the offence under Section 138 of Indian Electricity Act and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default to undergo 4 months SI for the offence under Section 139 of Indian Electricity Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is having his land near the land of A1. A1 in his land cultivated the paddy crops and in order to prevent damages to the crop by rats, he along with A2 to A4 put an electric fence in his field around the paddy crops, knowing that the same will endanger the life of the human being, during night hours on 21.11.2006 through the pumpset service connection No.482 and at 5.45 a.m on 22.11.2006, when the defacto complainant went with his adopted son Ramesh and two cows to plough his land, Ramesh got in touch with the live fence wire and died on the spot. The accused clandestinely drew the electricity without any permission by interfering with the pumpset electric connection. On hearing the noise of Ramesh, P.W.1 the defacto complainant turned and saw his adopted son Ramesh was thrown away due to electric shock and died on the spot. He saw A1 to A4 in the pumpset room plugging out the fuse career. A1 to A4 also came and saw Ramesh dead and after placing the body at a distance attempted to go but since P.W.1 raised alarm and many persons from the village came, they placed the body in the original place and left. 3. P.W.1 went to the Kalambur Police station and gave the complaint. On receipt of the complaint, case was registered. P.W.4, VAO also came to the spot at 7 a.m itself. P.W.5, wireman, P.W.6, Engineer from the Electricity Department also came there. 3. P.W.1 went to the Kalambur Police station and gave the complaint. On receipt of the complaint, case was registered. P.W.4, VAO also came to the spot at 7 a.m itself. P.W.5, wireman, P.W.6, Engineer from the Electricity Department also came there. P.W.9, Inspector of Police after registering the case went to the scene of crime, prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.2 in presence of P.W.4 and another witness. He also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P.7. He recovered the wooden sticks and kattu kambi, fuse career as M.O.1 to M.O.3 in the presence of the same witnesses. He conducted inquest in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared inquest report, Ex.P.8. He sent the body for postmortem. P.W.8 Doctor Rajeswari conducted autopsy. She found two black chared 3rd degree burn injuries over right leg and left leg above the ankle joint and opined that due to high voltage electric burns, the deceased would have died 8 to 12 hours prior to commencement of postmortem. 4. The Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. After completing investigation, he laid charge sheet. 5. The learned District and Sessions Judge, followed the procedure, first questioning the accused after framing of charges and then after examination of witnesses, questioning them under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C about the incriminating evidence, analysed the evidence and convicted the accused as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed by all the accused. 6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants / accused raised the following points: (i) As per the Doctors evidence, undigested food was found in the stomach during postmortem and therefore, the time of death would not have been 5.45 a.m. (ii) The earliest complaint given to the police has been suppressed and is not before the Court. (iii) There is no chance of going to the hallow land of P.W.1 as stated by him. (iv) The occurrence could not have taken place in the land of the accused. (v) The electric wire has not been recovered. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants argued that in the light of the above points, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused and they are entitled to be acquitted. 7. (iv) The occurrence could not have taken place in the land of the accused. (v) The electric wire has not been recovered. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants argued that in the light of the above points, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused and they are entitled to be acquitted. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor inter alia argued that P.W.1 has categorically deposed about the occurrence and the evidence of ocular witness cannot be brushed aside on the basis of the medical opinion that too about the availability of semi digested food in the stomach and the trial Court after analysing the evidence has rightly convicted the accused and the same does not require any interference. 8. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.11.2006 at about 5.45 a.m, when P.W.1 along with Ramesh went to the land taking cows for ploughing, the electric fence in the land of the first accused touched the legs of Ramesh and he died on the spot due to electrocution. P.W.1 in his cross-examination admits that Ramesh took his food at 7 p.m on 21.11.2006 and he went to bed at 8 p.m. The Doctor P.W.8 conducted postmortem at 3.45 p.m and completed the same at 5 p.m on 22.11.2006. She found the undigested food in the stomach of the deceased body. She has deposed during cross-examination that death would have caused within two hours after taking food by the deceased. After taking food at 7 p.m, Ramesh died at 5.45 a.m, i.e., after about 10 hours as per the case of the prosecution. Therefore the time of death creates doubt as to the projection of the case by the prosecution. 9. P.W.1 says that immediately after the occurrence he went to the police station and lodged the complaint at 7.30 a.m. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was also registered at 7.30 a.m. He says in his cross-examination that he gave the statement before the police in question and answer form and the same was taken as complaint by the police. P.W.3 who gave Ramesh in adoption to P.W.1 says that on hearing the death, she came to the spot at 8 a.m and after an hour from then, P.W.1 went to the police station with a written complaint. P.W.3 who gave Ramesh in adoption to P.W.1 says that on hearing the death, she came to the spot at 8 a.m and after an hour from then, P.W.1 went to the police station with a written complaint. The complaint Ex.P.1 is the written statement and it is not in the form of question and answer. Therefore the contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the earlier complaint given to the police has been suppressed cannot be brushed aside. 10. The Village Administrative Officer, who has been examined as P.W.4 says in his evidence that electric fencing will be made only when paddy crops is in the harvesting stage and no one will lay electric fence when it is in saplings stage. Though the Investigating Officer and P.W.6, Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Board say that there was wire hanging in the fuse career and the police took photographs of 320 wire, the photograph has not been marked as document and 320 wire has not been recovered and marked as M.O. 11. Above all, P.W.1 himself admits that during the life time of his father-in-law, his father-in-law drew water from the well of the first accused and made cultivation in his land. After his demise, he did not ask for water from the well of P.W.1 and they are not in talking terms. Therefore it is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that there is misunderstanding or enmity between P.W.1 and A1. 12. Absolutely there is no evidence either by the wireman or the Engineer about the offence under Sections 138 and 139 of the Indian Electricity Act. Though P.W.1 says that all the accused immediately after the occurrence took the deceased and placed at a distance and then after people came, they brought back and placed the body in its original position, there is no such averments either in the complaint or when he was examined by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore the evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy to base conviction. The appellants are entitled to get the benefits of doubt and accordingly, the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. The appellants are entitled to get the benefits of doubt and accordingly, the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants 1 to 4/accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai in S.C.No.93 of 2008, dated 31.01.2014 is set aside and the appellants/accused are acquitted from the charges. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to them. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellants/accused, shall stand cancelled.