Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26. As already noted, the prosecution was required to prove that there was death of elephant due to electrocution. The elephant was found dead in the land of the appellant because of electrocution which was due to illegal tapping of electricity from the pump house installation of the appellant. The evidence of all the witnesses with regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances overlap with each other.

27. To prove that the death of elephant was due to electrocution in the land of the appellant, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.9 Veterinary doctor who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the elephant and submitted report as per Ex.P21, the evidence of PW.3 the complainant cum spot mahazar witness, PWs.1 and 5 panchas to the spot mahazar as per Ex.P1. PW.7 the Junior Engineer of CESC Office who issued report as per Ex.P19, PW.8 the Assistant Engineer of CESC office Sargur and his report Ex.P20 about supply of electricity. PW.11 who registered the first information report and conducted investigation. PW.10 who recorded the statements of witnesses on the directions of PW.11.

29. In the cross-examination of PW.9 neither the scene of offence nor the death of the elephant was disputed. It was only suggested that to hold that the death of the elephant was due to electrocution, the Acro Reaction Test should have been conducted which the witness denied. He also denied the suggestion that elephant did not die due to electrocution. He being expert in conducting the postmortem and giving opinion was not disputed. This evidence of PW.9 was corroborated by the evidence of PW.3 the complainant and PWs.1 and 5 spot mahazar witnesses.

39. PW.8 was examined to speak about supply of the electricity during 06.02.2009 to 07.02.2009. PW.8 is the Assistant Engineer of Sargur CESC. He says that on the requisition of the appellant about supply of electricity to the scene of offence from 06.02.2009 to 07.02.2009, on examining the office records, he issued the report as per Ex.P20. Ex.P20 itself show that on 06.02.2009 from zero hours to 12.00 hours, there was no load shedding supply, from 12.00 hours to 18.00 hours, there was III Phase electricity supply, from 18.00 hours to 12.00 hours, one phase electricity supply. He further states that on 07.02.2009 from 00.00 hours to 12.00 hours, there was no load shedding, from 12.00 hours to 18.00 hours, there was III phase electricity supply and 18.00 hours to 24.00 hours, one phase electricity was supplied. The exact time of death of elephant is not known. But the elephant died between 06.02.2009 and 07.02.2009. PW.3 came to know about the death of the elephant when PW.4 informed him about the same.

40. An attempt was made to contend that between 00.00 hours to 12.00 hours on 07.02.2009 there was no electricity supply, therefore the case that the elephant died due to electrocution cannot be accepted. The exact time of the death of the elephant is not known. PW.3 came to know about the death of the elephant from PW.4 who informed about death of the elephant in the land of the appellant due to electrocution.

41. To PW.4 it was suggested that on 07.02.2009 when he was on beat in forest plantation, the villagers informed him about the death of elephant in the land of the appellant. He has turned hostile. Therefore the probability of the death of the elephant being electrocution due to supply of electricity between 12.00 hours on 06.02.2009 during midnight of the same date cannot be ruled out. During that period there was electricity supplied in three and one phase. Moreover Exs.P13 to P15 show that the trunk of the elephant was in contact with barbed wire and that was found there only. Therefore the contention that there was absolutely no electricity supplied and the death of the elephant cannot be accepted. The trial Court was justified in rejecting the said contention.