2nd Respondent used to take water from the river to his field for irrigation purposes.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T S. N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.
The story given by the two eye witnesses is that thereafter 2nd Respondent and other Accused have thrown the body into the river along with the live wire.
On this basis, by the impugned Order prosecution is directed to be proceeded with only for offences under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act.
However, two eye witnesses, by name Haribai aged about 12 and Sandhya bai aged about 7, have given statement to the police that 2nd Respondent had called the deceased Santosh to him and had given electric shock to the deceased on his chest and other parts of the body with the help of other accused.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows 2nd Respondent was possessing a field by the side of Shankar river.
Heard parties.
This Appeal is against an Order dated 29th March, 2000 by which an order framing charges under Sections 302 and 304 of I.P.C. has been quashed.
By the impugned Order the prosecution is directed to be proceeded only under Section 304 A of I.P.C. and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act.
2nd Respondent did number have electric companynection.
