17(i). Firstly, the alleged occurrence where the elephant was died due to electrocution by crossing the electricity fence put up by the forest department and thereafter a ditch, to contact with the fence of the appellant's land which was illegally given electricity connection. In this regard, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 would go to show that there was a fence put up by the appellant to his land situated adjacent to the forest land to prevent the movement of the wild animals to his land and that there was also an electric fence put up by the Forest Department to prevent the animals from the forest to private lands and that there was a ditch, which had been dug by the forest staff in between the fence of the appellant and the fence of the forest department. While so, it is prosecution case that an elephant was found dead 100 meters away from the fence of the appellant's land, in which case, the burden is on the prosecution to establish as to how the elephant broke open the electric fence put up by the forest department and crossed the ditch, dug by the forest staff and thereafter, how it reached and contacted with the alleged electric fence put up by the appellant to his land. But the prosecution has not proved the same by way of the evidence let in by the prosecution witnesses in this regard. Therefore, the very contact by the elephant with the alleged electric fence put up by the appellant by crossing the electric fence put by the forest department as well as a ditch dug by the forest staff, is highly doubtful. Since the entire prosecution case rests only on the circumstantial evidence, the conclusion reached by the trial Court that the elephant died due to an electric shock having contacted with the fence put up by the appellant, is only based on surmises and conjectures.
