Criminal appeal filed against conviction for theft of electricity, criminal mischief, and killing an elephant via electrocution. High Court dismissed the appeal upholding the trial court's finding of unauthorized connection and minimum mandatory sentence.
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.766/2011
BETWEEN:
PRASANNA KUMAR S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT HEDIYALA VILLAGE H.D. KOTE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT
….APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SARAGOOR POLICE STATION MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK BENGALURU-560 001
…. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. RAHUL RAI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:29.06.2011 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN SPL.C.NO.111/2008CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138(1)(a) OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003, SECTION 429 IPC AND SECTION 9 READ WITH SECTION 51 OF THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972.
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.02.2022, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C’ for short) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2011 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Special Case No.111/2008 (‘trial Court’ for short) whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused/appellant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 138(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘Electricity Act’ for short), Section 429 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( ‘IPC’ for short) and Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ( ‘WLP Act’ for short).
that, appellant/accused is the owner of the land bearing Sy.
3
No.15 in Chengowdanahalli bordering Hediyala of H.D. Kote Taluk. He put-up the Solar Fence around the said land. At a distance of 15 meters from the land, there was an electric pole. It is the further case of the prosecution that, on 08.02.2008, PW.1–Sri. B.R. Nagaraju, who was working as Range Forest Officer in Wild Life Range, Beeravalu, received an information that, in the land of the appellant/accused an elephant was lying dead. Immediately, he rushed to the spot along with PW.2Mahadeva, who was also an officer of the Forest Department and there, they found a female elephant lying dead due to electrocution. He has also noticed that some disconnected electric wires from the near by electric pole were lying there and hence, he lodged a complaint with jurisdictional police at about 1.45 p.m.. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No.13/2008 for offences punishable under Sections 429 of IPC, Section 135 of Electricity Act and Section 51 of WLP Act. Subsequently, charge sheet was submitted for offence under Section 138 of the Electricity Act along with Section 429 of IPC and Section 9 read with Section 51 of WLP
4
Act by the Investigating Officer, after completion of
investigation.
5
pole is installed near by his land and by the side of electric pole, there is a tree and due to grounding, the elephant died when it came in contact with said electric wire.
6
electrocution, no material evidence is available to show that, accused has taken illegal electric connection from nearby pole, as he having solar fencing around his land, which only create simple shocks and does not harm the life of any animal. He would also contend that, seizure of MOs. 1 & 2 were not proved in view of hostility of mahazar witnesses and the trial Court has convicted the accused only on the ground that the death of elephant has occurred in his land, but failed to consider the defence that creepers grown in the field have also been spread on the electric pole and the death of elephant must be by coming into contact with high-tension live electric pole, and there is no evidence to show that, accused has taken any unauthorized electric connection and as such, he would contend that the trial Court has committed an error and judgment of conviction is erroneous and perverse. He would also contend that the sentence imposed is also disproportionate to the offences alleged and as such, he would seek for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.
Pleader (‘HCGP’ for short) would support the judgment of the
7
trial Court contending that, PWs. 1 & 2 have supported the case of prosecution and their evidence is corroborated any other evidence. He would also contend that, hostility of PWs.3 & 10 does not affect the case of prosecution, as there is no reason for discarding the evidence of PWs. 1 & 2, merely on the ground that they are official witnesses. He would also contend that the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court is also reasonable one and it does not call for any interference and as such, he sought for rejection of the appeal.
“Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is perverse, capricious and illegal so as to call for any interference by this Court?”
8
Ex.P2, but, both of them have turned hostile. Accordingly, PW.8, who was presented as an independent witness, has also turned hostile.
9
10
this witness also. PW.5 is Village Accountant and he has stated that, he has issued Ex.P3-RTC extract, which was standing in the name of accused and this fact is undisputed. PW.6 is an engineer attached to CESC and has deposed that, on 17.06.2008, MOs. 1 & 2 were sent to him for examination and on examining the same, he has given report as per Ex.P14 stating that electric current can pass through these wires. On the contrary, PW.7, who is another engineer attached to CESC has deposed that, he has issued Ex.P15 about the supply of electricity in the said area on 07.02.2008.
11
signed Ex.P2, they are not prepared to explain as to under what circumstances and where exactly they have signed the said document. This clearly disclose that, these witnesses have been own-over and they are intentionally giving false evidence. PW.8, who is an independent witness has also turned hostile.
12
received and then lodged a complaint at 1.45 p.m. on the same day. Admittedly, the death of elephant in the land of accused is undisputed. Nothing has prevented for accused himself to report this matter to the nearest Police Station or Forest Department. Much arguments have been advanced regarding installation of Solar Fencing and it would only cause light shock, but not death. But, the evidence discloses that from nearest electric pole, electricity connection was given to the Solar Fencing, which has resulted in electrocution to the elephant. The evidence of Medical Officer (PW.4), who conducted autopsy on dead body of elephant, has specifically stated that the death is due to electrocution to the Trunk of elephant.
13
of this Act is a penal provision in respect of contravention of any provision of the Act and Section 9 of the Act prohibits hunting of any wild animal as shown in Schedule – I to IV except provided as under Sections 11 & 12. Further, “ hunting ” is also defined in Section 2(16) of WLP Act, which includes killing of the wild animals. Hence, offence under Section 51 of the WLP Act is also proved by the prosecution. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the said offence.
14
in relation of any wild animal specified in Schedule-I or Part-II of Schedule-II, the sentence shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years with fine, which shall not be less than Rs.10,000/-.
15
any perversity, illegality or arbitrariness so as to call for interference. Under such circumstances, looking the facts and circumstances, I answer the point under consideration in negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2011 passed by the trial Court viz., the I- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Special Case No.111/2008, is confirmed .
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGR*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is perverse, capricious and illegal so as to call for any interference by this Court?
Whether the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 51 of the WLP Act for killing an elephant (Schedule-I animal) was appropriate?
Whether the death of the elephant was caused by the unauthorized electric connection made by the accused to the solar fencing?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Prasanna Kumar
State of Karnataka
Rajendra Badamikar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
