Madras High Court
Murugan vs State By on 5 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.No.104 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.104 of 2023
Murugan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.State by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thirukovilur Sub Division,
(Manalurpet Police Station Crime No.485 of 2018)
Villupuram District
2.Ganesan
(R2 impleaded as per order dated 09.02.2023 in
Crl.MP.No.1889 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.104 of 2023) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.,
praying to allow the above appeal and set aside the conviction and
sentence imposed upon the appellant vide judgment dated 30.12.2022 in
SC.No.59 of 2019 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for
Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, Villupuram
and acquit the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Prabakar
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.S.Raja Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.K.Shakespeare
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 04:27:26 pm )
Crl.A.No.104 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been filed against the conviction
and sentence imposed upon the appellant vide judgment dated
30.12.2022 passed in SC.No.59 of 2019 on the file of the learned
Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered
under SC/ST(PoA) Act, Villupuram for the offence punishable under
Section 304(ii) of IPC and Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.09.2018 at about
11.30 a.m., near Kollapakkam Lake, the deceased was grazing his cattles
along with two others. He had gone for drinking water to the land
belongs to one, Ramachandran. There was fencing to protect the
agricultural crops from wild animals by tapping electricity from a live
wire. Unfortunately, he was electrocuted, due to which he died. The first
respondent registered FIR in crime No.485 of 2018 for the offence
punishable under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. After investigation, the offences
were altered and final report was filed for the offence punishable under
Section 304(ii) of IPC r/w 201 of IPC, Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity
Act, 2003 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(PoA) Amendment Act.
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 04:27:26 pm )
Crl.A.No.104 of 2023
3. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined PW1 to
PW18 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. They also produced material objects
i.e. MO.1 to MO.4. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and
no exhibits were marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences,
the trial court found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable
under Sections 304(ii) of IPC and Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act,
2003. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
there are totally three accused, in which the appellant is arrayed as A1.
The trial court acquitted the second and the third accused. The
prosecution failed to prove that the appellant was cultivating the land at
the time of the occurrence and he had only tapped electricity to the
electric fencing in and around the subject land. The said land admittedly
belongs to one, Ramachandran who was examined as PW10. He
categorically deposed that the land comprised in survey No.105/5 to an
extent of 14 ares belongs to him and he obtained electricity service
connection in SC.No.120. There, he was cultivating sugarcane crop and
the said land was not leased out to anybody. Therefore the prosecution
failed to prove that the appellant was in position of the subject land and
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 04:27:26 pm )
Crl.A.No.104 of 2023
he only tapped electricity to the electric fencing.
5. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted
that the prosecution categorically proved that the appellant was
cultivating the subject land and he only tapped the electricity power from
live electric wire to put up electric fencing in and around the subject land
illegally, that too without any cautioning. Unfortunately, the deceased
went to the subject land for drinking water and got electrocuted while
tapping the electricity fencing. After electrocution, he died on the spot.
The Assistant Engineer concerned of Electricity Board was examined as
PW12 and he categorically deposed that there was an electricity theft
from the land belongs to PW10 and electric fencing was put up without
any cautioning and without any permission from Electricity Department.
Therefore, the prosecution had proved the case beyond any doubt. Hence,
the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court
do not warrant any interference by this court.
6. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused, all the materials placed before this Court.
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 04:27:26 pm )
Crl.A.No.104 of 2023
7. There are totally three accused, in which the appellant is
arrayed as A1. A2 and A3 have already been acquitted by the trial court.
The appellant was convicted for the offences punishment under Section
304(ii) of IPC and Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act. The case of the
prosecution is that the appellant was the cultivating tenant under the
PW10 in respect of the land comprised in survey No.105/5 to an extent
of 14 ares at Kuladeepamangalam Village, Thirukovilur Taluk,
Villupuram district. When he was cultivating sugarcane crop, he had
electric fenced the entire land by tapping electricity from an electric post
illegally. The entire fencing was electrocuted without any cautioning.
When the deceased tapped the electric fencing, he got electrocuted and
died. The original owner of the land one, Ramachandran was examined
as PW10 and he categorically deposed as follows:
ehd; jw;nghJ FyjPgk’;fyj;jpy; FoapUf;fpnwd;/ ehd;
tptrha ntiy bra;fpnwd;/ M$h; vjphpfis bjhpa[k/; mth;fs;
v’;fs; Ch;fhuh;fs;/ rk;gtj;ij FwpjJ
; vdf;F vJt[k; bjhpahJ/
rk;gtj;jpd; nghJ ehd; vd; ngugps;isfis ghh;f;f brd;idf;F
brd;Wtpl;nld;/ rk;gtk; ele;j ,lk; vd;Dila epyk; rh;nt
vz;/105-5. 14 Vh;!; tp!;jPuzk;/ me;j ,lj;jpy; nkhl;lhh; gk;g[
brl;L cs;sJ/ mjw;fhd kpd; ,izg;g[ vz;/120/ me;j epyj;ij
ehd; jhd; gaph; bra;njd;/ fUk;g[ gaph; bra;jpUe;njd;/ ehd;
ahUf;Fk; Fj;jiff;F tpltpy;iy/ nghyPrhh; vd;id
Page 5 of 8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 04:27:26 pm )
Crl.A.No.104 of 2023tprhhpff; tpy;iy/
8. Thus it is clear that the subject land was never leased out in
favour of the appellant. PW10 was cultivating the land by farming
sugarcane crops. Therefore, the subject land was not leased out in favour
of the appellant and there is no proof to show that the appellant was
cultivating the subject land by farming sugarcane crops. Though the
entire fencing was electrocuted in and around the subject land to protect
the sugarcane crops from wild animals, the prosecution failed to prove
that only the appellant had put up the electric fencing and he was
cultivating the subject land. It is also not clear that how the prosecution
fixed the appellant as the accused when he was not the cultivating tenant
and when there is no proof to show that the appellant electric-fenced the
entire property. There is absolutely no piece of material produced by the
prosecution to prove that the appellant was cultivating the subject land
and he electric-fenced the property. It is true that there was electric
fencing and there was recovery of materials to show that the fencing was
fully electrocuted in order to protect the sugarcane crops from wild
animals, which were produced as material objects i.e. MO.1 to MO.4.
However, the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the
appellant. As such, the entire conviction and sentence imposed on the
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 04:27:26 pm )
Crl.A.No.104 of 2023
appellant cannot be sustained since the prosecution miserably failed to
bring the charges to home in order to convict the appellant for the
offences punishable under Sections 304(ii) of IPC and Section 135(i)(a)
of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be
set aside.
9. Accordingly, the judgment dated 30.12.2022 passed in
SC.No.59 of 2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special
Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST(PoA) Act,
Villupuram, is set aside and this criminal appeal stands allowed. The
appellant is acquitted of all the charges for the offences under Section
304(ii) of IPC and Section 135(i)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003. The bail
bond, if any executed by the appellant, shall stand cancelled. Fine
amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith.
05.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
lok
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 04:27:26 pm )
Crl.A.No.104 of 2023
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered
under SC/ST (POA) Act, Villupuram
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thirukovilur Sub Division,
Manalurpet Police Station,
Villupuram District
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
Crl.A.No.104 of 2023
05.06.2025
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 04:27:26 pm )