JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is by the accused No.1 in Special Case (Elec) No.23/2007, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.03.2010, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Davanagere, convicting the accused No.1-appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section-136 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- On 21.09.2006, during night hours, accused Nos. 1 & 2, with an intention to commit theft of aluminum wire fixed to the L.T line, belonging to K.E.B., department, removed about 480 meters of wire worth Rs.9,400/- and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section- 136 of Electricity Act, 2003. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 07 witnesses, marked 4 documents as at Ex.P.1 to P.4 and got marked M.Os. 1 to 4. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and imposed sentence as stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by accused No.1. 4. Shri. G.M. Ananda, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that PWs.2 & 3, the witnesses for spot mahazar Ex.2, have not supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety. PWs. 4 & 5, the witnesses for recovery mahazar Ex.P.3 have not supported the case of the prosecution. As such, there was no other evidence to corroborate the evidence of PWs.1, 6 & 7. Hence, there was no cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper perspective and misdirected itself in convicting the accused. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed and the accused be acquitted for the offences alleged against him. 5. On the other hand, Shri. Nasrullakhan, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record in proper perspective, has rightly convicted the accused for the offence alleged against him and hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. 5. On the other hand, Shri. Nasrullakhan, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record in proper perspective, has rightly convicted the accused for the offence alleged against him and hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsels and in view of the above mentioned rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: "Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in appreciating the evidence and whether it is was justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section-136 of the Electricity Act, 2003?" 7. PW.1 is the officer of the KEB and complainant. PW.2 & 3 are witnesses for spot mahazar Ex.P.2, PWs.4 & 5 are the witnesses for recovery mahazar Ex.P.3, under which M.Os 1 to 4 has been recovered. PW.6 is the constable who arrested the accused and produced him before the investigation officer. PW.7 is the investigation officer who conducted investigation. 8. PW.1 (Shambamurthy) is the Section Officer in KEB., and lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1, against unknown person. He has deposed before the Court that when the investigation officer summoned him to conduct spot mahazar, he identified the MOs. 1 to 4 wire belonging to KEB. However, in his cross-examination he has admitted that there was no specific seal of KEB., on the said wire and that such type wires being used by other departments as well. PW.2 (Lokesh) is a witness for spot mahazar Ex.P.2. He deposed that he was summoned for conducting spot mahazar Ex.P.2 and he affixed his signature to the same. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had affixed his signature in the police station and he does not know the contents of the said mahazar. PW.3 (K. Bisagnappa) is another witness for spot mahazar Ex.P.2 has stated in his evidence that he was present at the spot and affixed his signature to the spot mahazar Ex.P.2. PW.4 (Ismail) and PW.5 (Syed Khalandar) are the witnesses for recovery mahazar Ex.P.3 under which, the stolen wire MOs 1 to 4 has been recovered at the instance of the accused and they are crucial and important witnesses for the prosecution. Both these two witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile to the prosecution. PW.4 (Ismail) and PW.5 (Syed Khalandar) are the witnesses for recovery mahazar Ex.P.3 under which, the stolen wire MOs 1 to 4 has been recovered at the instance of the accused and they are crucial and important witnesses for the prosecution. Both these two witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile to the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has not established the recovery of the stolen wire at the instance of the accused. PW.6 (Marappa) is a police constable who apprehended the accused and produced them before the investigation officer. PW.7 (M.D. Thippanaik) was the Police Sub-Inspector who conducted the investigation in the case. 9. In the case on hand, to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution required to prove the recovery of the stolen article/wire at the instance of the accused under recovery mahazar Ex.P.3. As such, in the absence of eyewitnesses to the incident, the evidence of PWs.4 & 5, recovery mahazar witnesses plays vital role to the prosecution. The prosecution has examined PWs. 4 & 5 to prove the recovery mahazar Ex.P.3, under which, the stolen wire M.Os. 1 to 4 was recovered at the instance of the accused. But, both these witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, inasmuch as, they turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW.1 was the officer of the KEB. Who initially lodged complainant against unknown person. He has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that there was no specific mark of KEB on the wire so recovered and that such wire being used by the other departments as well. There was no corroborative evidence for PWs. 2 & 3, the spot mahazar witnesses. PWs. 6 & 7 are the police personnel who participated in the investigation. Except the evidence of PWs. 1, 6 & 7, whose evidence was formal in nature, there are no sufficient, cogent and corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against him beyond all reasonable doubt. Apart from that, on perusal of the material on record, it would indicate that though the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section-379 of IPC., there was no charge framed against the accused for the said offence by the trial Court. 10. Apart from that, on perusal of the material on record, it would indicate that though the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section-379 of IPC., there was no charge framed against the accused for the said offence by the trial Court. 10. On re-appreciation of the entire material on records this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has committed an error in appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective and the learned Judge of the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused for the offences alleged against him. It is settled principle that when there are two views available, one which is beneficial to the accused is to be extended to him, by giving benefit of doubts. Accordingly I answer both the point holding that the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences alleged against him. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.03.2010 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Davanagere, in Spl.C.(Elecl) No. 23/2007, convicting the accused-appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section-136 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is hereby set aside. The accused- appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The bail bond executed by the accused-appellant shall stand discharged.