Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, J.
PRABHA S/O. PUTTASWAMAPPA - Appellant
Vs.
STATE BY S.H.O OF SARAGUR POLICE STATION - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.447/2011
Decided On : 02-08-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 173, 2(d), 223, 374(2) and 138 - Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 135 and 138, 113 - Wild Life Protection Act, 1972-Section 51, 55 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 429 - Whoever Commits Mischief by killing – Case of person not present - Whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. - Whether they have to be given a link by drawing the line of electricity wire to give link to the wire for purpose of either protecting crops or protecting crops from wild animals it should be established by prosecution by furnishing worth while evidence – Whether Raju or Prabha. But prosecution is required to facilitate worthwhile evidence for securing conviction - Whether any wooden clubs have been put around lands of farmers to protect their crops from wild animals or intruders entering into their land.
Finding of the Court :
Report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, commission of a non- cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be complainant - Appellant/accused who was residing in land by constructing house has drawn unauthorized electric connection by using M.Os.1 and 2 insulated aluminum wire and long binding wire and due to electric connection to those M.Os.1 and 2 and also using wooden clubs which has been subjected in photographs at Ex.P3 as contended by prosecution. - These are all che material evidence on part of prosecution and this evidence requires to be established by prosecution without giving room to any doubt to prove guilt of the accused - But tilting balance is necessary in terms of the appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution and the death of wild elephant aged about 18 to 20 years as per Ex.P9 - But merely because farmers have put fencing in order to protect crops but they would also taken care of wild animals which are public property and life of wild animals is more important as equally to human beings, but both lives should be protected.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in Special Case No.75/2008 dated 12.04.2011 whereby it convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 429 of IPC, besides the offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003, so also the offence under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. The appellant is seeking to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court and acquit the accused.
2. It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that, on 04.12.2007 at around 7.15 p.m. PW.1 complainant has filed the written complaint as per Ex.P1 before Sargur Police, H.D.Kote Taluk alleging that on the same day at about 2.30 p.m. he received information from his staff member Sri Somaraje Urs who is examined as PW.2 and one Krishna regarding death of female elephant within Maliyur Forest Range. Immediately he reached to the spot where he noticed that wild elephant had died in the land belonging to one Raju son of Siddegowda, wherein said Raju had planted wooden clubs surrounding his land and had drawn the wire to the said fence. On 03.12.2007 during night hours he had given unauthorised electric connection to the wire in the fence and the wild elephant came there in search of food and came into contact with the live wire and had died at the scene of crime due to electrocution. Therefore the said person namely Raju is responsible for the death of wild elephant.
3. In pursuance of the act of the accused and also of filing of the complaint by PW.1, case in Crime No.139/2007 was registered by Sargur police station, H.D.Kote Taluk. Subsequent to registration of the crime for the offences which are reflected in the first information report, the Investigating Officer has taken up the case for investigation and conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and also during the mahazar, the investigating Officer is said to have seized wooden clubs in terms of peg which were used for drawing fence. The wild elephant had lost its breathe due to electrocution. The postmortem examination was conducted on the deceased wild elephant and the Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of witnesses, apart from securing the report from CESE Sargur Office with regard to supply of electricity in that area. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the accused namely Prabha S/o. Puttaswamappa to face the trial before the Court of I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Mysuru.
4. Subsequent to filing of charge sheet against the accused, the presence of the accused was secured to face trial and the charges were framed against the accused. But the accused did not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused has been recorded separately. Thereafter the prosecution in all examined PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 apart from MOs.1 and 2 were also got marked.
5. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused was examined as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for incriminating evidence appearing against him whereby the accused denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses adduced so far but he did not come forward to adduce the defense evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C.
6. Subsequently, the trial Court on hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and so also, the defense counsel for the accused and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 429 of IPC, so also the offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 inclusive of Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has pref
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
