Unauthorised abstraction of electrical energy and unauthorised supply of electricity resulting in the death of an elephant constituted offences under S. 135 of the Indian Electricity Act and S. 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act.

JUDGMENT

H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. - Learned District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajnagar (henceforth for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') by his order dated 15.09.2010 passed in Special Case No. 2/2008 convicted the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act and under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act and accordingly sentenced him. It is against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the trial Court is that; on 30.07.2007, the accused has dishonestly abstracted the electrical energy from the electrical pole of CHESCOM and unauthorisedly, given power connection to the zinc wire fencing put around the land bearing Sy. No. 76/1 situated at Bommanahalli Village, in order to protect the crop grown by him and an elephant came in contact with the said live wire fencing and died due to electrocution. Thus, the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act and under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. The charges were framed accordingly for the said offences.

3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was held by the trial Court wherein, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, prosecution got examined 12 witnesses from PWs.1 to 12 and got marked the documents as Exs. P1 to P13 and material objections at MOs.1 to 5. Neither the accused led any defence evidence nor produced any documents as exhibits from his side.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused in his argument submitted that except official witnesses, all independent witnesses including the neighbouring land owners have not supported the case of prosecution. CW5 who was the informer of the incident to his superior has not been examined by the prosecution. There is discrepancy in the timing at which the respondent police have said to have visited the spot.

5. Learned counsel further stated that even according to PW7, there was no supply of power at the time of incident in the area where the alleged offence is said to have taken place. The wooden poles stated have been seized from the scene of occurrence of offence are admittedly not removed from the place where they are stated to have been fixed. On the other hand, they have been seized from the neighbouring land where the wooden poles and wire bundle are said to have been piled up. Finally stating that the Regional Forest Officer (R.F.O.) who is said to have lodged the complaint in the matter cannot file the complaint in the manner as in the case, learned counsel prayed for acquittal of the accused.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his argument submitted that merely because the mahazar witness and neighbouring witness are stated to have not supported the case of the prosecution, the reliable evidence of the forest officers and the other official witnesses cannot be disbelieved.

Learned counsel also submitted that the alleged incident of death of the elephant due to electrocution in the land of the accused is not in dispute. As such, appreciating the materials in its proper perspective, the trial Court has convicted the accused which does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.

The points that arise for my consideration are:

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 30/07/2007, in his land bearing Sy. No. 76/1 situated at Bommanahalli village within the limits of respondent - Police Station, the accused has dishonestly abstracted the electrical energy from the electrical pole belonging to CHESCOM and unauthorisedly supplied the same to zinc wire fencing erected around his land due to which, an elephant came in contact with the said live zinc fencing and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under S. 135 of the Indian Electricity Act and for the offence punishable under S. 51 of Wild Life Protection Act?

(ii)