Vellingiri Thevar and Another vs State and Another

Somasundaram, J.—Vellingiri Thevar, the first petitioner herein, is the lessee of a coconut thope in Vellalore a village in Coimbatore district.

The second petitioner is his servant. For preventing persons, from climbing on the trees for removing coconuts, the petitioners had put G.I. electric

wires around the trunks of the coconut trees. They had allowed electric current to pass through these wires. Two persons, Marudan and Krishnan,

who came late contest with the live wires, on the night of 14th November, 1967, died at the spot. P.W. 1, Sreedharan, found the dead bodies

entangled in the wire, the wire being connected to the coconut tree which stood at a distance of about 25 feet from that place. He gave the report,

Ex. P-1 to the police. P.W. 12, the Sub-Inspector, reached the scene at 6 p.m. He found G.I. wires of 20 gauge tied around 60 coconut trees in

the thope and the end of the wire was found inserted into a plug in the garden shed, near the well while the other end was at the right hand of the

deceased Marudan. The dead body of Krishnan was lying close to him. Dr. Rajaram, P.W. 10, who did the autopay over the body of Marudan

opined that death was due to electric shock, caused by contact with live wires. As regards Krishnan, the other victim, the doctor stated that he

also should have died of electric shock by coming into contact with live wire or with the person already in contact with such a wire. The learned

Magistrate convicted the petitioner under S. 304 , I.P. C. and sentenced the first petitioner to undergo R.I. for six month and the second petitioner

to suffer R.I. for one month. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirmed the convictions, set aside the imprisonment and modified the

same into one of fine Rs. 700 for the first petitioner and Rs. 200 for the second petitioner. The petitioners contend that these convictions are not

correct.

... ... ... ...

(After discussing the evidence, His Lordship proceeded).

On behalf of the petitioners it is urged that the wires were tied around the trees at a height of 15 feet from the ground level and that these two

persons could not have been electrocuted unless they had climbed upon the trees for committing theft. As pointed out by the supreme Court in

Cherubibin Gregory v. State of Bihar 1964 M. L. J. Cri. 236 it is no doubt true that the risk and the occupier owes no duty to take any reasonable

care for his protection, but at the same time, the occupier is entitled to do wilfully, acts, such as setting a trap or setting a naked lived wire with the

deliberate intention of causing harm to the trespassers. Where death is caused even of a trespasser by contact with each a live wire the occupier

will be guilty of an offence under S. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. A trespasser is not an outlaw, a caput lupinem. The mere fact that the person

entering a land is a trespasser does not entitle the owner of occupier to inflict on him personal injury by direct violence and the same principle

would govern the infliction of injury by indirectly doing something on the land, the effect of which he must know was likely to cause serious injury to

the trespasser. Thus in England it has been held that one who sets spring-guns to shoot at trespasser is guilty of a tort and that the person injured is

entitled to recover damages. There is little difference between the spring gun used as a trap and the naked live wire which is in truth ''an

arrangement to shoot a man without personally firing a shot''.

The conviction is correct and the sentence is not excessive. Both are confirmed. The revision falls and is dismissed.