JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant herein has filed this appeal challenging judgment and order dated 29.08.2005 passed by Sessions Court, Akola (Trial Court) in Sessions Trial No.42/2005, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. 2. The prosecution case was that; early in the morning on 12.01.2005, one Ashok Barde along with Samadhan Meshram had gone to the agricultural field bearing Gat No.12 situated at village Kasarkhed, Taluka Murtizapur, District Akola, which was owned by one Dilip Bhatkar, for manufacturing illicit liquor. It was the case of the prosecution that when the said Ashok Barde had gone to fetch firewood, he came in contact with a live wire in the field and died on the spot due to electrocution. The said wire was said to have been used for illegally taking electricity from a high voltage 11 KV. electric cable passing above the said agricultural field. The case of the prosecution was that although the said field was owned by Dilip Bhatkar, it was in possession of the appellant, who was carrying on agricultural operations therein. On this basis, it was alleged that the appellant was responsible for causing death of said Ashok Barde. 3. The incident was reported to the police by Bhaskar Bhatkar (PW3), but the oral report was submitted by one Gautam Barde (PW1), on the basis of which, First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 02.01.2005 itself. Investigation was undertaken by Kailash Pundkar (PW8), investigating officer who recorded statements of various persons including the Police Patil and the owner of the field and on the basis of the material collected during investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. It was claimed that record of rights (7/12 extract) pertaining to the said agricultural field, produced by the owner Dilip Bhatkar (PW6), demonstrated that the appellant was in cultivating possession of the field when the said incident took place. The appellant was charged with having committed the said offence under Section 304 of the IPC. 4. It was claimed that record of rights (7/12 extract) pertaining to the said agricultural field, produced by the owner Dilip Bhatkar (PW6), demonstrated that the appellant was in cultivating possession of the field when the said incident took place. The appellant was charged with having committed the said offence under Section 304 of the IPC. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and the material witnesses were; Gautam Barde (PW1) the complainant who submitted the oral report leading to registration of the FIR against the appellant; Bhaskar Bhatkar (PW3) Police Patil; Samadhan Meshram (PW5), an eye witness to the incident; Dilip Bhatkar (PW6), owner of the field; Gangadhar Bhusari (PW7), Electrical Inspector and PSI Kailash Pundkar (PW8), investigating officer. 5. The trial Court found that the evidence of these witnesses demonstrated that the appellant was indeed in cultivating possession of the said field on 02.01.2005, when the said incident took place. It was found that the record of rights (7/12 extract) demonstrated that while Dilip (PW6) was owner of the field, the appellant was in cultivating possession for about one year. On the basis of the evidence of Police Patil-Ashok (PW3), the owner of the field-Dilip (PW6) and the Electrical Inspector-Gangadhar (PW7) read with the record of rights (7/12 extract), the trial Court came to the firm conclusion that the appellant was indeed in cultivating possession of the field when the incident took place. On this basis, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 304 IPC. 6. Mrs. Kirti Satpute, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that while there was evidence to show that the deceased Ashok died because of electrocution in the field owned by Dilip (PW6), there was no reliable evidence on record to show that the appellant was in cultivating possession of the said field. It was submitted that the record of rights (7/12 extract) was received from the office of Talathi and that in the absence of Talathi being examined as a witness, the said document could not have been relied upon by the trial Court for convicting the appellant. It was pointed out that there was no document prior to the date of the incident demonstrating that the appellant was in cultivating possession of the field. It was pointed out that there was no document prior to the date of the incident demonstrating that the appellant was in cultivating possession of the field. It was further submitted that the Police Patil had no authority to depose on the question as to whether the appellant was in cultivating possession of the field and that his evidence was rendered unreliable because it had come on record that he was cousin of the owner of the field i.e. Dilip (PW6) and that he may have given evidence in support of the owner, in order to save him from liability. Similarly, the evidence of the Electrical Inspector-Gangadhar (PW7) was also not reliable on the question as to whether the appellant was in cultivating possession of the field. On this basis, it was submitted that when there was no reliable evidence to connect the appellant with the field where the incident took place, the trial Court could not have convicted the appellant. 7. Per contra, Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the record of rights (7/12 extract), was sufficient to prove that the appellant was in cultivating possession of the field at the relevant time and that Police Patil-Bhaskar (PW3), Samadhan (PW5), owner of the field-Dilip (PW6) and Electrical Inspector-Gangadhar (PW7), had all stated in unison that the appellant was indeed in cultivating possession of the field at the relevant time. It was submitted that the said evidence of the prosecution witnesses read along with the record of rights (7/12 extract), proved the case of the prosecution against the appellant. On this basis, it was submitted that the appeal deserved to be dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the crucial question that arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether the prosecution was able to place on record cogent oral and documentary evidence to connect the appellant with the aforesaid agricultural field where the incident took place on 02.01.2005, resulting into death of Ashok. If the said connection was established by the prosecution, it was clear that the appellant was indeed liable for being convicted under Section 304 of IPC. If the said connection was established by the prosecution, it was clear that the appellant was indeed liable for being convicted under Section 304 of IPC. As noted above, in the present case, the main document on which the prosecution has relied, is the record of rights (7/12 extract) dated 04.01.2005, wherein it is recorded that Dilip (PW6) was the owner of the field and that the appellant was in cultivating possession thereof. This document was produced by Dilip (PW6) himself. Apart from this document and the oral evidence of Dilip (PW6), the above mentioned prosecution witnesses had all stated that appellant was cultivating the field on the date when the incident occurred. The facts of the present case, as they emerge from the material on record, show that the owner of the field i.e. Dilip (PW6) was clearly interested in deflecting the liability that would have fallen on his head regarding the death of the said Ashok. There was no dispute about the fact that the said Dilip (PW6) was owner of the field. In the absence of showing that some other person was in cultivating possession, the liability would entirely fall on the head of the said witness Dilip (PW6). Therefore, when he produced the aforesaid document i.e. record of rights (7/12 extract), it should have been accepted by the trial Court with some circumspection. The trial Court ought to have looked for corroboration. Apart from this, the said document was admittedly dated 04.01.2005, which was after the incident had taken place. Its evidentiary value, therefore, stood considerably weakened because it was a document that came into existence after the incident had taken place. This aspect also seems to have slipped the mind of the trial Court. 9. The other material factor in the present case was that the author of the said document i.e. Talathi was not examined by the prosecution. In order to prove the veracity of the said document, it was only the Talathi, who could have deposed before the Court. But, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, he was not examined. A perusal of the evidence of the investigating officer (PW8) shows that in cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not issue any letter to Talathi for obtaining information regarding cultivating possession of the field in question. This is a reason given by him for not recording statement of Talathi. A perusal of the evidence of the investigating officer (PW8) shows that in cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not issue any letter to Talathi for obtaining information regarding cultivating possession of the field in question. This is a reason given by him for not recording statement of Talathi. Although, the said witness had volunteered to state that he had issued a letter to Tahsildar but he further went on to say that he did not get 7/12 extract from the Tahsildar. The investigating officer was expected to follow up the matter further because there was necessity of an independent witness to depose before the Court in respect of the said document i.e. the record of rights (7/12 extract), particularly when it was a document that came into existence after the incident had occurred. This was a fatal flaw in the prosecution case. 10. The other witnesses could not have vouched for the veracity of the said document pertaining to the record of rights. Police Patil-Bhaskar (PW3) had deposed in favour of the claim that the appellant was in cultivating possession but it came on record that he was a cousin of the owner of the field i.e. Dilip (PW6). There was every possibility that Police Patil-Bhaskar (PW3) was deposing in order to save the skin of his own cousin, although he denied the said suggestion given to him in the cross-examination. The Electrical Inspector had no authority to depose on the question as to who was in cultivating possession of the field. 11. Therefore, there was lack of cogent evidence on record to show that the appellant was indeed in cultivating possession of the field in question on 02.01.2005 when the incident took place. The prosecution, apart from examining the Talathi who was the author of the document, could also have examined owners of the agricultural fields that were adjoining the field in question. The prosecution could have examined the persons in cultivating possession of the said adjoining fields. But, no such effort was made by the investigating officer, either due to sheer negligence or because an effort was being made to shield the owner of the field, Dilip (PW6) or some other person who may have been in cultivating possession of the field in question. But, no such effort was made by the investigating officer, either due to sheer negligence or because an effort was being made to shield the owner of the field, Dilip (PW6) or some other person who may have been in cultivating possession of the field in question. Once such serious doubt was created about the basic fact connecting the appellant with the incident in question, benefit ought to have been given to the appellant. 12. But, the trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and it proceeded on the basis that the said record of right (7/12 extract) was the clinching proof of the appellant being in cultivating possession of the field. The absence of independent witnesses to prove the said fact was not taken into account by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order. This has rendered its findings against the appellant, perverse and unsustainable. 13. In the light of the above, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence for which he was charged. Bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.