Partly allowed

Krishnappa @ Krishna v. the State

Karnataka HC16 Aug 2023CRL.A/736/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 736 of 2011, the Karnataka High Court dealt with convictions under the Electricity Act, IPC, and the Wild Life Protection Act. The Court held that cognizance under the Wild Life Protection Act following a police charge sheet was improper where the act requires a specific complaint. The conviction and sentence under the Wild Life Protection Act were set aside, while those und

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 9 r/w Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 were set aside. Convictions for offences under the Electricity Act, 2003 and IPC were

Krishnappa @ Krishna Vs the State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:28954 CRL.A No. 736 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 736 OF 2011

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KRISHNAPPA @ KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O SWAMY, CHIKKABARAGI VILLAGE, H. D. KOTE TLAUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶9

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVAYOGI B. HALLUR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHWETA ANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE, SARAGOOR POLICE STATION.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP AND SRI. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:28.6.11 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST., AND S.J., MYSORE IN SPL.C.NO.74/08 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138(1)(a) OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003, SEC. 429 IPC AND SEC. 51 OF THE WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT.

¶15

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:28954 CRL.A No. 736 of 2011

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.06.2011 passed by the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Spl. Case No.74/2008, wherein the accused - appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 138(1)(a) of the Electricity Actw, 2003, Section 429 of IPC and Section 9 read with Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State and perused the material on record.

¶21

Brief facts of the prosecution case are :

¶22

That on 30.10.2007 PW1 and PW2, who are working in Forest Department were on patrolling duty found a dead elephant in the land of the accused and also found that electric connection has been un-authorizedly taken by the accused to the fence put up around the land from his house. They passed

¶23

the information to PW7 - Assistant Conservator of Forest. Immediately, PW7 went to the spot and found a dead elephant

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28954 CRL.A No. 736 of 2011

¶25

and also noticed that there was unauthorized electric connection taken by the accused to the fence put up around the land from his house. He filed a complaint as per Ex.P30. Police took up investigation and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused - appellant.

¶26

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined PW1 to 12 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to 13 and MOs 1 to 3.

¶27

Amongst the prosecution witnesses PW6, 8, 9 and 11 have been treated hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶28

PW7 is the first informant, who was working as Assistant Conservator of Forest. He lodged the complaint as per Ex.P13. He has stated that on 30.10.2007, he was informed by PW1 and PW2 about the death of an elephant in the land of the accused and immediately he went and examined the spot and found that there was fence put up around the land, which was given electric connection unauthorisedly by the accused from his house and the elephant was laying dead in

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:28954 CRL.A No. 736 of 2011

¶31

the land of the accused. He found that the land belongs to accused and sugar cane and cotton were grown in the land. He also found that there was electric connection unauthorisedly taken from the house of the accused to the fence around the land. The said evidence of PW7 has been corroborated by the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Further from the spot MO1 to 3, namely, insulated wire and Blue & White iron wires were seized. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is that the accused is the owner of the land, where the elephant was found.

¶32

7. PW4 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem

¶33

as per Ex.P10. According to the report, the elephant died on account of electrocution. PW5 is the Engineer who has given report as per Ex.P11 stating that there was electric supply on the date of incident. PW3 is the Engineer working in C.E.S.C., who has examined MOs.1 and 2 and given report as per Ex.P9, opining that electric current will pass in MOs.1 and 2. In view of the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant – accused is the owner of the land and he had taken unauthorized connection of electricity from his house to the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:28954 CRL.A No. 736 of 2011

¶36

fence around his land and the elephant came in contact with the said fence and died due to electrocution which is substantiated by Ex.P10 issued by PW4.

¶37

The Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, Section 429 of IPC., and Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Trial Court was not proper in convicting the appellant under the provision of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as there is no complaint filed by an authorized officer and therefore, the cognizance for the offence under the said Act could not have been taken.

¶39

He placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Srinivasa and Another Vs. State by Beechanalli Police Station,

¶40

Bengalugu in Crl.A.No.716/2011 decided on 27.05.2022, wherein it is held as under:

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:28954 CRL.A No. 736 of 2011

¶43

“13. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the trial Court was not proper in convicting the appellant under the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act, as there is no complaint filed by an authorized officer and therefore, cognizance for the offence under the said Act could not have been taken. He has placed reliance on an unreported Judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.715/2011 disposed of on 15.03.2022, and contended that in similar circumstances, this Court has held that Section 9 r/w Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act is not attracted. Relevant para No.17 of the said Judgment is extracted hereunder:

¶44

“17. Another aspect is that, under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the said Act, except on the complaint of any person other than the officers mentioned therein. Admittedly in the instant case, cognizance is taken on the basis of charge sheet filed by the police and not on a complaint, which is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of Cr.P.C. Even on the said ground the conviction of the appellant under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act cannot be sustained.”

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:28954 CRL.A No. 736 of 2011

¶47

Even in the instant case, the complaint was lodged by PW7 – the Assistant Conservator of Forest before the Police and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and on the basis of the charge sheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance and therefore, the cognizance was not taken on complaint, which is defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the conviction of the appellant – accused for the offence punishable under Section 9 r/w Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is not sustainable in law.

¶48

The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for the rest of the offences does not call for any interference. Hence, the following;

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The appeal is partly allowed . The

¶51

conviction and sentence of the appellant passed in Spl.Case No.74/2008 dated 28.06.2011, by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru for the offence punishable under Section 9 r/w Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is hereby set-aside.

¶52

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:28954 CRL.A No. 736 of 2011

¶53

(ii) The conviction and sentence passed for the

¶54

offence punishable under Section 138(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 429 of IPC., is

¶55

confirmed.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

VK / GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT:STK

Krishnappa @ Krishna v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnappa @ Krishna v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesha Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt Priyadarishini D Vs State of Karnataka by SHO

Nandisha Vs State of Karnataka

Adeebulla Sharief Vs State by Kadugondanahalli Police

Shashank Vs State of Karnataka

Umesha. N Vs State of Karnataka