Madras High Court
Bhaskar vs State Rep. By on 28 August, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.No.657 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 08.08.2025
Pronounced on 28.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.657 of 2023
Bhaskar ..... Appellant / Accused-1
Vs
1. State rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Ulundurpet Sub-Division,
Villupuram District.
2. State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvennainallur Police Station,
Villupuram District.
Crime No.681 of 2017.
3. Bharathi Priya ..... Respondents
(R3 impleaded as per the order dated 30.06.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.9220/2023
in Crl.A.No.657/2023)
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed is under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to set aside
the judgment made in S.C.No.73 of 2017 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST
(POA) Act, Villupuram, dated 27.02.2023.
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm )
Crl.A.No.657 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.S.R.Rajagopal
Senior Counsel
for Mr.N.S.Suganthan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1 and R2
Ms.Malaiyarasi for R3
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred as against the judgment dated 27.02.2023 passed in S.C.No.73 of 2017 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered Under SC/ST (POA) Act, Villupuram, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 304(ii) of IPC and Section 135 (1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.07.2017 at about 09.15 p.m. both the deceased have gone to their sugarcane field for irrigation and they did not return to their home. On 27.07.2017 at about 07.30 a.m, the de facto complainant went to the field and found his mother and brother dead. She also found that the appellant, along with another person, had erected an electric fence by illegally tapping electricity from the pole situated on the adjacent land, thereby, they murdered his mother and brother. The appellant 2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023 and another had repeatedly asked the deceased to sell their land for which the deceased have refused to sell the land in their favour. Therefore, the accused have planned to murder them by electrocution. Hence the complaint.
3. On receipt of the complaint the respondent registered FIR in Cr.No.681 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 304(ii) of IPC and Section 135 (1)(a) of the Electricity Energy Theft Act, 2003 and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked Exs.P1 to P14. The prosecution also produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.6. On the side of the accused no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences under Section 304(ii) IPC and Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offences punishable under Section 304(ii) IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offences punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. During pendency of the trial, the second accused died. Hence, all the charges were abated against him. 3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023 Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court the first accused / appellant had preferred the present Appeal.
4. Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the daughter of the deceased / de facto complainant lodged a complaint alleging that on 27.07.2017 at about 07.30 p.m., when both the deceased went to irrigate their field, they suffered electrocution and died. As per the FIR both the deceased went to their field on 26.07.2017 at about 09.15 p.m. and thereafter, the occurrence had taken place. This discrepancy is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is not the case of the prosecution that there was a high tension electric line, from which the electricity was tapped by the accused for creating an electric fencing. If a person is electrocuted by a high tension electric line, then he will be thrown away for a longer distance. Whereas in the case on hand the bodies of the deceased were found near the electric fencing. Admittedly, there was no high tension line and it was only a low tension line. In fact the deceased used to draw water from the appellant's land by paying the charges. Therefore, the allegation of murder was accepted by the trial Court and even then the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC. 4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023 4.1 Even in the deposition of P.W.1, she deposed that the appellant had drawn electricity line 500 metres away from their land, however she failed to mention the Survey Number and other location of the land in which allegedly the appellant had tapped the electric power. Further, there is no proof to show that the said land belongs to the appellant. Some part of the electricity wire were seized by the respondent from the scene of crime and it does not match with the length between the electric pole and the electric fencing.
4.2 The another son of the deceased was examined as P.W.2. He deposed that he had seen the bodies of the deceased at about 7.30 a.m. on 27.07.2017. But P.W.1 deposed that she had seen the bodies of the deceased at 08.00 a.m on 27.07.2017. Hence, there is a contradiction between P.W.1 and P.W.2. Further, there is no deposition with regard to electric fencing touching the water channel that is used to draw water. In fact, both P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed that they were fully aware about the electric fencing put up by the appellant. However, they failed to lodge any complaint and failed to inform anybody. Therefore, the trial Court convicted the appellant only based on the circumstantial evidences and there is no link to connect the appellant to the alleged offence.
5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023 4.3 The Assistant Engineer from the Electricity Board was examined as P.W.7. He deposed that during his inspection, the electricity connection was disconnected and no link was found between the electric fencing and electric line. He further deposed that on the date of alleged occurrence, there was power shutdown and there was no electricity power in the place of alleged occurrence. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge to convict the appellant.
4.4 The prosecution had examined the neighbouring land owner who is also an interested witness. In fact, he deposed that he had knowledge about the electric fencing 10 days prior to the alleged occurrence. Even then he did not inform anybody about the electric fencing which is illegal.
4.5 The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that if at all the deceased touched the electricity line by foot, the entry point of the electrocution must be the foot. Whereas the postmortem report reveals that the entry point is on the hands of the deceased. Therefore, without considering the above facts and circumstances the trial Court mechanically 6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023 convicted the appellant.
4.6 The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that as per the rough sketch the distance between the alleged electric pole and the electric fencing is 75 metres, whereas P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed that the distance is 500 metres. However, there was no recovery of electric cable to that extent. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the electricity was tapped from the electric pole which is situated in the adjacent land owned by one Krishnamoorthy to put up the electric fencing.
4.7 In support of his above contention the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of this Court in Kasiraj Vs. State by Inspector of Police in Crl.R.C.No.32 of 2014 dated 23.06.2017 where it is held that merely because the deceased died of electrocution, in the absence of any evidence, it cannot be presumed that he died due to electric wire put up by the accused. With mere recovery of some binding wires and bamboo sticks, it cannot be presumed that the accused had put up a wire fencing illegally.
4.8 The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the 7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther andanother Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 520 wherein it is held that in order to prove the offences under Section 304(ii) IPC, the following ingredients are necessary:
“ (i) he must commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder;
(ii) the act must be done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death;
(iii) but such act is done without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” In the case on hand, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the appellant had put up a electric fencing and tapped the electricity power from an electric pole to the fencing. Further, the appellant had absolutely no intention to cause death to anybody. Therefore, the conviction under Section 304 (ii) IPC cannot be sustained and the same is liable to quashed.
4.9 In so far as the conviction under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is concerned, as per the evidence of P.W.7 - Assistant Engineer, the prosecution failed to prove the charge and the conviction and punishment imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained and the same is also liable to be set aside.
8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023
5. Per contra, Ms.M.Malaiyarasi, the learned counsel for the third respondent, would submit that though the appellant had put up an electrical fencing for the purpose of protecting the sugarcane crops from the wild animals, he is fully aware that if anyone touches the fencing it will cause death. Admittedly, the appellant illegally tapped the electric power from the electric pole which is situated in the adjacent land of one Krishnamoorthy and had given connection to the fencing and converted it into electric fencing. In fact in the proceedings initiated by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the appellant had admitted the theft of electric power and paid fine. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant had tapped the electric power from the electric pole and put up a electric fencing illegally, without any permission from the concerned authority.
5.1 She would further submit that though there are some discrepancy in the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The minor contradictions cannot be looked into when other witnesses have categorically deposed that the deceased went to their field to irrigate and got electrocuted from the water channel. The postmortem report also revealed that the deceased got electrocuted through their hands and died. 9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023 The electric power was tapped from the electric pole through a cable and the same was connected to the fencing and if anyone touches the fencing they will be electrocuted. As such there is no question of stampting the electric cable with foot. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.
6. Mr.S.Raja Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2, submitted that in order to prove the charges, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.16. Wherein, P.W.10 – Krishnamoorthy, categorically deposed that the appellant had tapped the electric power from the electric pole situated in his land to put up a electric fencing. In fact Krishnamoorthy was aware about the tapping of electric power by the appellant and though he warned the appellant, the appellant continued to tap the electric power from the electric pole situated in his land.
6.1 The Doctors who conducted postmortem were examined as P.W.12 and P.W.13. They have submitted a report stating that both the deceased died due to electrocution. After the electrocution, the deceased were thrown away to some distance. It need not necessarily be a high-tension electric line to cause such an effect; even a low tension electric line can 10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023 throw a person to some distance upon contact. Further, the appellant is the owner of the said electric fencing and the circumstances clearly prove that the deceased died due to electrocution by touching the electric fencing installed by the appellant. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.
7. Heard Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr.S.Raja Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.M.Malaiyarasi, the learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the materials available on record.
8. The appellant owned an agricultural land and fenced the same. In order to protect the sugarcane crops, the appellant tapped the electric power from an electric pole which was erected in the land owned by P.W.10 - Krishnamoorthy. After tapping electric power, the appellant connected a cable to his wired fencing and converted it into electric fencing, that too without any permission or license from any of the concerned authority. In order to irrigate their agricultural field, both the deceased went to their land on 26.07.2017 at about 07.30 p.m. and they got electrocuted and died 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023 immediately on the spot. It was seen by P.W.1 on the next day i.e. on 27.07.2017 at about 08.00 a.m.
9. As per the rough sketch, the distance between the electric pole and the electric fencing is only 75 metres. To that extent, the Investigation Officer seized the electric cable and produced it as material objects before the trial Court. Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 have deposed that the distance between electric pole and electric fencing is 500 metres, it is only a typographical error. The Assistant Engineer from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was examined as P.W.7 and he categorically deposed as follows:
“ ,jw;F Kd; fle;j 27/07/2017 md;W fhiy
Rkhh; 7/30 kzpastpy; bghJ kf;fs; nghd; K:ykhf
bfh';fuhad; Chpy; xU bgz; kw;Wk; rpWtd; kpd;rhuk;
jhf;fp ,we;Jfplg;gjhf jfty; brhd;djd; nghpy;
ehDk;. fk;gpahsh; uh$[[;FkhUk; rk;gt ,lk; brd;W
ghh;j;njhk;/ fpUc&;zK:h;j;jp vd;gtUf;F brhe;jkhd
taypy; jd;dpr;irahf kpd;rhuk; jpUlg;gl;L Rkhh; 75 kP J}uj;jpy; gh!;fud; vd;gthpd; epyj;jpw;F kpd;ntyp mikf;fg;gl;L ,Ue;jJ/ mjpy; fUk;g[ gaphplg;gl;L ,Ue;jJ/ me;j ,lj;jpy; nggp vHpy; Fkhh; Mfpnahh;
kpdrhuk; jhf;fp ,we;J fple;jhh;fs;/ kpd;thhpaj;jpd;
12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023 eltof;iffhf gh!;fud; mth;fspd; kpd;,izg;g[ v';fspd; cah; mjpfhhpapd; mDkjpa[ld; kpd;Jz;og;g[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ nkYk; gh!;fh; kPJ kpd;jpUl;L rk;ge;jkhf kpd;rhu Jiwf;F ,iHg;gPL bra;jjw;fhf chpa bjhif tR{y; bra;ag;gl;lJ/ fpUc&;zK:h;j;jp epyj;jpy; ,Ue;J ,uz;L ePz;l Fr;rpK:ykhf nehpilahf kpd;fk;gj;jpypUe;J bry;Yk; xahpypUe;J nehpilahf kpd;rhuk; vLf;fg;gl;L ,Ue;jJ/ eh';fs; rk;gt ,lj;jpypUe;jnghJ nghyPrhh; kw;Wk; tpVX te;Jtpl;lhh;fs;/”
Thus it is clear that the distance between the electric pole and electric fencing is only 75 m. In fact, for the theft of electricity, the appellant was fined and he admitted the theft and paid the fine amount. Therefore, the appellant had only put up the electric fencing in order to protect the sugarcane crop from the wild animals.
10. The Doctors who conducted postmortem were examined as P.W.12 and P.W.13. The postmortem report of the first deceased who was the brother of the de facto complainant revealed that he sustained three injuries due to electrocution and he died due to the same. The postmortem report was marked as Ex.P4. The Doctor who conducted postmortem on the 13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023 second deceased who was the mother of the de facto complainant, revealed that she sustained electrocution injury on her right forearm to the extent of 5x2 cms. Therefore, the death is caused due to electrocution. Hence, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced that there must be entry point and exit point for an electrocution injury.
11. The owner of the adjancent land where the electric pole is situated, from which the electric power was tapped by the appellant, was examined as P.W.10. He deposed as follows:
“ Rkhh; 2 tUlj;jpw;F Kd;ghf xUehs; fhiy 7/30 kzpf;F ,we;J nghd nggpapd; bghhpa kfd; mk;kht[k; jk;gpa[k; ,ut[ jz;zPh; gha;r;r nghdth;fs; jpUk;gp tutpy;iyna vd;W mth;fs; epyj;jpw;F ngha; ghh;j;jnghJ mth;fs; ,we;J fple;jij v';fsplk; te;J brhd;dhh;/ Ch;fhuh;fs; Xo ngha; ghh;j;njhk;/ eh';fs; ngha; ghh;j;jnghJ mth;fs; tha;f;fhypy; ,we;J fple;jhh;fs;/ nghgp epyj;jpw;Fk; vjphp epyj;jpw;Fk;
,ilapy; tha;fhy; ,Ue;jjpy; gh!;fh; epyj;jpw;F fk;gp ntyp
nghlg;gl;L ,Ue;jJ/ fpUc&;zK:h;j;jp epyj;jpy; cs;s
kpd;rhu fk;gj;jpypUe;J bfhf;fp nghl;L me;j fk;gp
14/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm )
Crl.A.No.657 of 2023
ntypf;F fbdf;rd; bfhLj;jpUe;jhh;fs;/ jkpH;ehL
kpd;thhpaj;jpdh; te;J ghh;j;jhh;fs;/ rk;gtj;jpw;F Kd;ghf
vjphpfs; mth;fSila epyj;jpw;F Rw;wpYk; fk;gp ntyp
nghl;L me;j fk;gp ntypf;F bkapd; kpd;rhu
fk;gj;jpypUe;J neuoahf fbdf;rd; bfhLj;jpUe;jjhf
ehd; ghh;j;jpUf;fpnwd;/”
Thus it is clear that the appellant had tapped electric power from the electric pole situated in the adjacent land owned by P.W.10 for the purpose of electric fencing.
12. In all these circumstances, the prosecution categorically proved the charges under Section 304(ii) of IPC and Section 135 (1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant are not helpful to the case on hand.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 304(ii) of IPC and Section 135 (1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023
14. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had also paid some compensation to the deceased family. That apart, the Government has also paid compensation to the deceased family and provided one Government Employment for P.W.2. The appellant had already been in incarceration for a period of one year and 99 days.
15. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant, this Court modifies the sentence imposed by the trial Court to the effect that the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant, on a condition that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) directly to the legal heirs of the deceased, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Failing which the sentence imposed by the trial Court stands restored and the respondents 1 and 2 are at liberty to secure the appellant in order to undergo remaining period of sentence.
16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is Partly Allowed.
28.08.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
16/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm )
Crl.A.No.657 of 2023
Speaking/non-speaking order
bkn
To:
1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, Villupuram
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ulundurpet Sub-Division, Villupuram District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station, Villupuram District.
Crime No.681 of 2017
4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.
17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm ) Crl.A.No.657 of 2023 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
bkn Pre-delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.No.657 of 2023 28.08.2025 18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 03:39:37 pm )