JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Crl.P.C to set aside the judgement passed in S.C.No.3 of 2017 on the file of the 2nd Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dated 26.11.2019.) 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned 2nd Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dated 26.11.2019 in S.C.No.3 of 2017, in and by which, the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 435 of Indian Penal Code and imposed 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and on 3 counts for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and imposed 10 years rigorous imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count and in default for payment of fine to undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment. 2. On 06.08.2014, when one Hemalatha, Sub-Inspector of Police was on duty at Thudiyalur Police Station, PW.1 one Ravi appeared before her and lodged a complaint to the effect that his family possesses 1 acre of land. In the said land, fencing by erecting cement poles and barbed iron wires was made by them and hut was constructed in the western corner, in which, one Sankaradas was living as a Watchman. While so, the accused, who was the owner of the adjacent land, developed jealousy and on 04.08.2014, at about 6.00 A.M., it was found that the said hut used by the Watchman was burning and therefore, when one Malathi, Manohar and Sankaradas attempted to go near and when they touched the fence, they got electric shock and at that time, the accused took away the wire which he used to make the electric connection and ran away. From this, they came to know that the accused had burnt the hut and also, so as to kill the persons who may come to douse the fire, he has given electricity connection in the fencing. On the said complaint, a case in Crime No.504 of 2014 was registered for the offences under Sections 435 and 307 IPC. 3. From this, they came to know that the accused had burnt the hut and also, so as to kill the persons who may come to douse the fire, he has given electricity connection in the fencing. On the said complaint, a case in Crime No.504 of 2014 was registered for the offences under Sections 435 and 307 IPC. 3. Initially, PW.11 Vetrivendan and thereafter PW.12 Saravanan, took up the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet, which was taken on file as PRC.No.31 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore and after furnishing copies as per Section 207 of CPC, committed the case under Section 209 of CPC to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, upon which, the case was taken on file as S.C.No.03 of 2017 and thereafter was made over to the Trial Court, namely, the 2nd Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. Thereafter, charges were framed for the said offences and upon being questioned, the appellant denied the charges and stood trial. 4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined one Ravi as PW.1, who is the first informant. The wife of said PW.1, namely one Kanchana, who is the owner of the property, was examined as PW.2. One Sasidharan, who was a resident near the scene of occurrence, was examined as PW.3 and he was an eye witness. One Malathi, who is also a resident nearby and who is also one of the injured witness who suffered the shock, was examined as PW.4. One Kalpana, who is the wife of the injured witness Sankaradas, was examined as PW.5 and she deposed that she came to the spot after the occurrence. One Satish Kumar, son of Sankaradas, was examined as PW.6, who is also examined as an eye witness to the incident. One Sankaradas, who is the Watchman residing in the subject property and who is an injured eye witness, was examined as PW.7. One Manoharan, who is also an eye witness and injured witness of electric shock, is examined as PW.8. One Kandhasamy, the Assistant Executive Engineer from the Electricity Board was examined as PW.9, for the purpose that there was electricity connection in the name of the accused in respect of his land near the place of occurrence. One Manoharan, who is also an eye witness and injured witness of electric shock, is examined as PW.8. One Kandhasamy, the Assistant Executive Engineer from the Electricity Board was examined as PW.9, for the purpose that there was electricity connection in the name of the accused in respect of his land near the place of occurrence. One Dr.Parameshwaran was examined as PW.10, who is a Doctor in a Private Hospital who examined the 3 injured witnesses and stated that he treated them by giving Neuro Vitamin Injection and given them Wound Certificates stating that the injuries were simple injuries. One Vetrivendan, the Investigating Officer, who conducted the major part of the investigation, was examined as PW.11. One Saravanan, who conducted part of the investigation, was examined as PW.12. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, the complaint given was marked Ex.P.1. The observation mahazar was marked as Ex.P.2 and the seizure mahazar was marked as Ex.P.3. The report of the Assistant Executive Engineer of TNEB was marked as Ex.P.4. The wound certificate to the 3 injured witnesses was marked as Exs.P.5 to P.7. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P.8 and the rough sketch was marked as Ex.P.9. A black wire was produced as MO.1 and a burnt casuarina stick was produced as MO.2. 6. Upon questioning about the evidence on record and the incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant denied the same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in by the defense. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and by the judgment dated 26.11.2019, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 435 of IPC and under Section 307 of IPC (3 counts) and sentenced as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is laid before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant, taking this Court through the entire evidence on record, would contend that firstly, the entire case of the prosecution is false. The appellant was a cultivating tenant with the vendor of PW.1 and PW.2 from whom the land was purchased in the name of PW.2. Since they did not want to recognize him as the cultivating tenant, this case has been foisted. The appellant was a cultivating tenant with the vendor of PW.1 and PW.2 from whom the land was purchased in the name of PW.2. Since they did not want to recognize him as the cultivating tenant, this case has been foisted. He would submit that the complaint is given as if the appellant is the owner of the adjacent land and out of jealousy, he has done it. The witnesses examined in this case are either related to PW.1 and PW.2 or their family members or the neighbors who are having interest in the said land. He stated that not even a single independent witness is examined in this case. 8. Further, by taking this Court through the evidence of PW.3, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that they have spotted the appellant when he was trying to set the hut on fire and he ran away upon seeing them. While PW.6 would state that thereafter, he had again come back and was taking away the wires, which he has used for making electricity connection for the fence. He would further submit that on reading of the evidence of PW.6, it would be clear that again after 2 days, the appellant recovered the said wire, which is alleged to have been taken away by the accused. The wire alleged to have been used by the appellant and one casuarina stick alleged to have been used to burn the hut, have been artificially shown as recovered. He would further submit that even all the 3 injured witnesses were not taken to the Government Hospital and the wound certificates does not contain any wound whatsoever. It is given by a private Doctor. When such a serious incident is said to have taken place, the complaint itself has been lodged after a period of 2 days, which is fatal to the case and therefore, the said delay itself would demonstrate the extreme artificialness in the case. 9. This apart, taking this Court through the cross examination of the Investigating Officer, the learned counsel would demonstrate that absolutely no investigation whatsoever has been conducted by the Investigating Officer and his admission in the cross examination is that he did not even mention about the half burnt casuarina stick, which was recovered. 9. This apart, taking this Court through the cross examination of the Investigating Officer, the learned counsel would demonstrate that absolutely no investigation whatsoever has been conducted by the Investigating Officer and his admission in the cross examination is that he did not even mention about the half burnt casuarina stick, which was recovered. The Investigating Officer did not know the colour of the wire and from where it was connected and where the fence was touched by the injured witnesses and for every aspect of the case, he has admitted that he has not investigated and that he did not have knowledge. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that absolutely the case smacks of falsehood and in any event, the Trial Court ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the appellant and ought not to have convicted him for serious offences under Sections 435 and 307 IPC and mulcted him with such a sentence. 10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that this is a case where there are eye witnesses. All the 3 injured witnesses were examined and they spoke about the incident. This apart, PW.3 and PW.6 were also examined, who have clearly seen the accused setting fire to the hut as well as remove the electric wires used by him for the purpose of giving electric connection to the fence. This apart, he would submit that the wound certificate is marked and just because the Doctor is from a private hospital, it cannot be discredited. He would submit that the delay in lodging the FIR is because of the fault of PW.1, who being the owner of the land has to take action in lodging a complaint. Therefore, that by itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and prayed that this Criminal Appeal is without any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of either side and perused the materials available on record before this Court. 12. In this case, I am fully in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant. The entire case does not inspire confidence of this Court. The motive alleged by the prosecution is that he was jealous being the owner of the neighbouring land. 12. In this case, I am fully in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant. The entire case does not inspire confidence of this Court. The motive alleged by the prosecution is that he was jealous being the owner of the neighbouring land. The same was proved to be false by cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, whereby, they have admitted that there is a civil dispute pending between the accused and themselves regarding recognition of the accused as a cultivating tenant in respect of the land in question. Further, the state of mind/intention of the accused, as alleged by the prosecution is that, he would set the hut on fire and upon seeing the hut burning, people will come and touch the fence and therefore, he wanted to kill those people whoever may touch the barbed wire fencing and with that intention, gave an electricity connection from his line. The intention, as alleged, by itself, it can be seen from the reasons stated infra that it is too far fetched to believe. The actus reus alleged is that on the day of occurrence i.e., on 04.08.2014 at about 6.00 A.M in the morning, after noticing that P.W.7, Sankaradas, had left the hut to have Tea, he had set the hut on fire and even while he was setting the hut on fire, P.W.3 noticed and then the accused ran away and then the three injured witnesses came and touched the fence and suffered electric shock and then, thereafter, the accused again came and disconnected the electric wire and took away the same. The deposition of the witnesses does not inspire confidence. For instance, PW.3 who is supposed to be an eye witness, would state as follows:- 13. Further, as per the statement of PW.2, if a person is setting fire to the hut and if that is seen by anyone, especially by PW.3, who is the neighbor and a person who is in the thick of things as stated by PW.3, he would only run away. But, however, PW.6 would state that when he went near the spot, i.e. after the hut was being burnt and after the injured witnesses went near the spot and suffered the shock, he saw the appellant disconnecting the wire and taking back the wire he used. It is essential to extract his version, which is as follows:- 14. But, however, PW.6 would state that when he went near the spot, i.e. after the hut was being burnt and after the injured witnesses went near the spot and suffered the shock, he saw the appellant disconnecting the wire and taking back the wire he used. It is essential to extract his version, which is as follows:- 14. This apart, when such a serious offence of setting the hut on fire and attempting to electrocute has been committed, it is unbelievable that the matter will not be reported to the Police for a period of 2 days. Therefore, the delay in lodging the complaint also raises serious suspicion. To top it all, PW.3 would depose in his chief examination that on 06.08.2014, after the complaint, when the Police visited the spot, they recovered the wire which is alleged to have been disconnected and taken away by the appellant along with the burnt casuarina stick. It is essential to extract the said portion of the evidence also. 15. Thus, the entire case of the eye witnesses smack artificialness and none of their testimony is trustworthy. To top it all, it is extremely essential to extract a major portion of the cross examination of the Investigating Officer in this case, which reads as follows:- 16. The answer is in affirmative for every question put across by the defense and therefore, absolutely the prosecution version is unbelievable. 17. I am therefore of the view that this is a case in which the prosecution has not at all proved the alleged occurrence. In any event, the evidence on record and the defense by the cross examination has amply raised so many doubts in the prosecution case, so that the appellant would be entitled to benefit of doubt. I therefore hold that the conviction by the Trial Court for the offences is unsustainable and the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned 2nd Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, by the judgment dated 26.11.2019 in S.C.No.03 of 2017 is set aside. The accused is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. 19. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned 2nd Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, by the judgment dated 26.11.2019 in S.C.No.03 of 2017 is set aside. The accused is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. 19. It is now stated that the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.75,000/-, pursuant to the order in Crl.M.P.No.19266 of 2019 and the same is lying to the credit of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore. It is made clear that the appellant will be entitled for refund of the said amount back to him.