This appeal is preferred by the accused feeling

aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2011

passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Mysore, in Spl. Case No.27/2009, wherein, she has been

convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable

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

Section 429 of IPC and Section 9 read with Section 51 of

the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

2.

Heard both side and perused the material on

record.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that the

accused is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.52/113 of

Beeramballi

village,

Antharasanthe

Hobli,

H.D.Kote

Taluk. She has grown sugarcane in the said land and

3

fenced the land with alluminum wire and has given

electric connection to the said fencing by drawing

electricity unauthorizedly from the power station situated

in the land. On 29.10.2008, a female elephant came in

contact with the electric fence which was erected around

the land of the accused and died due to electrocution.

4.

Charges were framed against the accused for

offences punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity

Act, 2003, Section 429 of IPC and Section 9 read with 51

of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

5.

In order to bring home the guilt of the

accused, the prosecution got examined 9 witnesses and

got marked six documents, Exs.P1 to 6 and MOs.1 and 2.

6.

The Trial Court has come to the conclusion

that the accused is guilty of offence under Section

138(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and not under

Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Further, it has come

to the conclusion that though there is no direct evidence,

4

the circumstances point out to the guilt of the accused

and the evidence of PW5-Veternary Doctor who has

conducted post mortem examination corroborates the

other evidence on record and therefore, the prosecution

has proved the charge under Section 429 of IPC.

Further, observed that by taking unauthorized electricity

connection to the fence, the accused is indirectly

responsible for killing an elephant and therefore, she has

committed the offence punishable under Section 9 read

with 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

7.

The learned counsel for appellant / accused

has contended that there is no complaint filed by an

Officer notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

and therefore, taking cognizance by the Court is vitiated

in view of Section 55 of the of the said Act. He, further

contends that from the material on record, it cannot be

held that the accused has committed an offence under

Section 9 punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life

(Protection) Act. He has also contended that the material

5

on record is not sufficient to hold that the accused is

guilty of the offence punishable under the Electricity Act

as well as under Section 429 of IPC since the

independent witnesses to the spot mahazar i.e., PWs.3,

4 and 9 have turned hostile. Therefore, he contends that

the approach of the trial Court and the reasons assigned

for convicting and sentencing the accused is not in

accordance with law.

8.

The learned HCGP has contended that the

prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt in as much as PWs.1,

2, 5 to 8 have supported the case of prosecution and

their evidence is sufficient to hold that the accused has

committed the offences for which the trial Court has

convicted and sentenced. He contends that there is no

illegality committed by the trial Court and accordingly,

seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

9.

PW.2 is the Forest Guard working at Gundre

Forest range. He informed about the death of an

6

elephant to PW.1-Range Forest Officer. On receiving the

said information, PW.1 along with PW.2 went to the spot

and noticed a female elephant lying dead. He lodged the

complaint, which is marked as Ex.P1. The Spot Mahazar

as per Ex.P2 was conducted and a white insulated wire-

MO.1 and Solar wire MO.2 were seized.

10. It is pertinent to see that PW7, the Village

Accountant has is