The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Rakesh Lodh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on admission. The State has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17.10.2011 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in ST No. 54/2010 whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of Section 304 (Part II) and 201 of I.P.C. passed by

The prosecution''s case in short is that the deceased Savitri @ Javitri was found dead in the field of respondent Ram Das on 16.1.2010. It was alleged that she went to answer the call of nature and thereafter, she sustained injuries due to electrocution because the respondents took an illegal connection from the main line to the motor of the respondents. After death of the deceased the respondents removed that temporary line. An intimation was given to the Police and the body of the deceased Savitri @ Javitri was sent for post mortem. Dr. B.S. Yadav (PW9) found that the deceased died due to electrocution within last 12 to 36 hours. After due investigation a charge sheet filed and case was committed to the Sessions Court.

The respondents abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea in the matter. They have stated that they were falsely implicated due to enmity. No defence evidence was adduced.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution''s evidence acquitted the respondents.

After considering the submissions made by the learned Panel Lawyer for the State, it appears that the prosecution could not give an evidence that the line was erected by the respondents in their field and it was so low that the deceased could be electrocuted. There is no evidence to show that the respondents removed that line from the field. According to the report given by the Junior Engineer of MPSEB Ex. P/3, there was no electric current supply in the particular village from 6.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. According to the evidence given by the relatives of the deceased, the deceased went to answer the call of nature and therefore, she went from the house at about 7.00 a.m. in the morning. While she was taking leaves of coriander from the field of respondent Ram Das, she died due to electrocution. When there was no flow of current between 6.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. then there was no possibility of electrocution of the deceased in the field of Ram Das. Premabai (PW3) has accepted that Kamta had informed her that Savitri @ Javitri was lying in the courtyard of Ram Das but, thereafter she was dragged to the field of Ram Das. Dr. B.S. Yadav (PW9) has stated that the deceased could die within last 12-36 hours, from his time of post mortem. He did the post mortem on the body of the deceased on 16.1.2010 at about 4.00 p.m. and therefore, deceased could have died between 4.00 a.m. on 15.1.1010 to 4.00 a.m. of 16.1.2010. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the deceased did not die at 7.00 a.m. in the morning in the field of the respondents. The Police ignored the fact that the dead body of the deceased could be thrown in the field of the respondents and the deceased died due to electrocution done with her at any other place. Daduram (PW5), father of the deceased, has stated much about the husband of the deceased and relatives of the husband of the deceased. He has accepted that when he asked Ramswarup and Kamta then they had said that there was no electricity in the village and therefore, the deceased did not die due to accident. On the contrary, she was killed. However, the Police shifted the guilt of the husband and relatives of the deceased towards the respondents. Under such circumstances, it was a doubtful case that the deceased sustained electrocution in the field of the respondents due to any illicit live line. The trial Court has committed no error in acquitting the respondents from the charges of Section 304 (Part II) and 201 of I.P.C. There is no reason so that any interference can be done in the judgment passed by the trial Court. A possibility cannot be ruled out that the dead body of the deceased was thrown in the filed of the respondents. There is no reason by which the appeal filed by the State may be accepted and therefore, there is no point in grant of leave to appeal. Consequently, the application filed by the State for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed. Leave is refused. Copy of the order be sent to trial Court along with its record for information.