Conviction for electrocution death requires reliable proof linking the accused to the fatal illegal connection.

On 30 August 2020, seven-year-old Neha died by electrocution in a village drain. The prosecution alleged that an illegally drawn electric wire from a pole to the appellant’s agricultural field had broken and fallen into the drain.

The Special Court convicted the appellant under Section 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 304-A of the IPC, sentencing him to concurrent terms of six months’ rigorous imprisonment on each count. He appealed under Section 415(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the wire which caused Neha’s death had been illegally connected by the appellant to his agricultural field

Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s convictions under Section 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 304-A of the IPC

Section 304-A of the IPC concerns causing death by a rash or negligent act, while Section 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 addresses dishonest abstraction or use of electricity.

The prosecution was required to prove the appellant’s responsibility for the alleged illegal connection and the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt. Section 415(2) of the BNSS, 2023 provided the basis for the appeal; Section 481 of the BNSS was invoked for the post-acquittal bond direction.

The Court accepted that Neha died from electrocution, as established by the eyewitness accounts and post-mortem evidence.

However, the prosecution did not establish that the wire in the drain belonged to, or had been connected by, the appellant. Other villagers also had agricultural fields and electric connections near the drain, and the prosecution produced no revenue records identifying the relevant field as the appellant’s.

The wire and motor pump were seized two months after the incident, and the electrical inspection occurred months later; the inspection witness had not verified ownership or possession of the field. In these circumstances, the evidence did not reliably connect the appellant to the fatal wire or prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

It directed his release unless required in another case and ordered him to furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000, effective for six months, with an undertaking to appear before the Supreme Court if notice issued in any special leave proceedings.