This appeal is filed by the accused/appellant under

Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (8Cr.P.C.9 for

short) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 20.06.2011

passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru

in Special Case No.77/2008, whereby the learned Sessions

Judge has convicted the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 138(1)(a) of the Electricity Act ,2003 ( Electricity

Act9 for short), Section 429 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (8IPC9

for short) and Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (

8WLP Act9 for short).

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the

trial Court.

3.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the

accused is the owner of the land in Chikkabaragi of H.D. Kote

Taluk. On 16.03.2008, PW.7-M.Mahadevaiah, working as Forest

3

Guard was on patrolling duty and when he was proceeding from

Chikkbaragi to Doddabaragi along with CW.3-Devaraju, he

found that some eagles flying over the land of accused and as

such, he went there and found a dead elephant. He also

noticed that the solar fence has been put-up around the land

of the accused and the elephant was lying on the fence. It is

the further case of prosecution that, some burn injuries found

on the body of elephant and from the nearest electric pole

illegal and unauthorized electricity was taken to the solar fence

put-up around the land of accused. After noticing all these

aspects, immediately he informed PW.1-D.K. Mahadevaiah, who

was working as Assistant Conservator of Forests. On getting

said information, PW.1 went to the spot and verified the factual

aspects and having confirmed that the elephant died due to

electrocution, he gave a written complaint to Saragoor Police as

per Ex.P1. Then the Investigating Officer visited the spot,

drawn a mahazar and Veterinary Doctor has also conducted

autopsy on the dead body of the elephant and then after

completing investigation, PW.8-B.L.Raghavendra has submitted

the charge sheet against the accused.

4

4.

After submission of the charge sheet, as there are

sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, cognizance

of the alleged offences were taken. Initially, the accused was

arrested and produced before the Court and later on he was

enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were furnished to the

accused.

5.

After having heard the arguments advanced by the

learned counsels appearing for the parties on both sides and

perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned

Sessions Judge has convicted the accused/appellant herein for

offence under Section 138(1)(a) of Electricity Act, Section 429

of IPC and Section 9 r/w. 51 of the WLP Act, by imposing fine of

Rs.5,000/- each for offences under Section 138(1)(a) of

Electricity Act and Section 429 of IPC, while for offence under

Section 9 r/w. section 51 of WLP Act, he imposed Rigorous

Imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.10,000/-. Being

aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence,

the accused has filed this appeal.

5

6.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader

(8HCGP9 for short) for the respondent-State.

7.

Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would

contend that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

is opposed to Law, facts and circumstances of the case. He

would also contend that the learned Sessions Judge has

committed serious error in convicting the accused/appellant

herein. He would further contend that, there is no evidence

placed to show that the land wherein the elephant found dead,

was belonging to accused and in absence of this medical

evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in

convicting the accused. He would also contend that the

Investigating Officer, who has done major investigation, was

not examined. He would further contend that, no independent

witnesses regarding spot-mahazar have supported