JUDGMENT : In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in Special Case No.75/2008 dated 12.04.2011 whereby it convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 429 of IPC, besides the offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003, so also the offence under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. The appellant is seeking to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court and acquit the accused. 2. It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that, on 04.12.2007 at around 7.15 p.m. PW.1 complainant has filed the written complaint as per Ex.P1 before Sargur Police, H.D.Kote Taluk alleging that on the same day at about 2.30 p.m. he received information from his staff member Sri Somaraje Urs who is examined as PW.2 and one Krishna regarding death of female elephant within Maliyur Forest Range. Immediately he reached to the spot where he noticed that wild elephant had died in the land belonging to one Raju son of Siddegowda, wherein said Raju had planted wooden clubs surrounding his land and had drawn the wire to the said fence. On 03.12.2007 during night hours he had given unauthorised electric connection to the wire in the fence and the wild elephant came there in search of food and came into contact with the live wire and had died at the scene of crime due to electrocution. Therefore the said person namely Raju is responsible for the death of wild elephant. 3. In pursuance of the act of the accused and also of filing of the complaint by PW.1, case in Crime No.139/2007 was registered by Sargur police station, H.D.Kote Taluk. Subsequent to registration of the crime for the offences which are reflected in the first information report, the Investigating Officer has taken up the case for investigation and conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and also during the mahazar, the investigating Officer is said to have seized wooden clubs in terms of peg which were used for drawing fence. The wild elephant had lost its breathe due to electrocution. The wild elephant had lost its breathe due to electrocution. The postmortem examination was conducted on the deceased wild elephant and the Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of witnesses, apart from securing the report from CESE Sargur Office with regard to supply of electricity in that area. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the accused namely Prabha S/o. Puttaswamappa to face the trial before the Court of I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Mysuru. 4. Subsequent to filing of charge sheet against the accused, the presence of the accused was secured to face trial and the charges were framed against the accused. But the accused did not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused has been recorded separately. Thereafter the prosecution in all examined PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 apart from MOs.1 and 2 were also got marked. 5. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused was examined as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for incriminating evidence appearing against him whereby the accused denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses adduced so far but he did not come forward to adduce the defense evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. 6. Subsequently, the trial Court on hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and so also, the defense counsel for the accused and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 429 of IPC, so also the offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 inclusive of Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal by urging various grounds. 8. Heard learned Counsel Sri K.Hemanthkumar for the appellant and learned HCGP Sri Rahul.K.Rai for the State who are present before the Court physically. 9. Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the contents of the first information report said to have been recorded by Sargur police, H.D.Kote Taluk. He contends that in the first information report one Mr.Raju is arrayed as the accused and was the landlord of the property where the wild elephant had died by electrocution. 9. Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the contents of the first information report said to have been recorded by Sargur police, H.D.Kote Taluk. He contends that in the first information report one Mr.Raju is arrayed as the accused and was the landlord of the property where the wild elephant had died by electrocution. He further contends that name of the accused was not found in the first information report or in the complaint and later his name was inserted by the persons inimical terms towards the accused due to political rivalry. In fact the said Raju has been cited as witness in the charge sheet. But he was not examined by the prosecution to show that the prosecution has not come up with worth while evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for securing conviction against the accused. This aspect has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court to arrive at proper conclusion. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant further contends that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.1 the Range Forest Officer. He contends that PW.1 in his cross-examination has specifically stated that he do not know as to who is the owner of the land and where the wild elephant was electrocuted and died at the scene of crime. PW.1 do not have proper information about the owner of the land where dead body of the wild elephant was lying and also pleaded ignorance of survey number of the landed property. All these facts show that the accused has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime that he is responsible for the death of the wild elephant by electrocution, whereas the accused has put up the live wire on the landed property in order to protect the crops as stated. 11. The second limb of arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant is referring to the evidence of PW.2 but where PW.2 also pleaded ignorance of the survey number of the said land which clearly shows that the appellant has nothing to do with the prosecution case. The trial Court has committed error in assessing the evidence of PW.2 on part of the prosecution. 12. The trial Court has committed error in assessing the evidence of PW.2 on part of the prosecution. 12. Counsel for the appellant further contends that even the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and 11 who are the prime witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution to any extent to arrive at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and also established the circumstance of causing death of wild elephant by electrocution. He further contends that the trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of PW.14 the spot mahazar witness where he states that he does not know the contents of Ex.P2 and also the evidence of PW.12 where he has not mentioned as to why he has dropped the said Raju from the first information report and inserted the name of the appellant and has not collected any document or ocular evidence to say that the land belongs to the accused. On all these premises, learned counsel for the appellant seeks for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court if not gravamen of the accusation would be the sufferer. 13. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State submitted that there is no dispute about the death of female elephant within Maliyur forest range due to electrocution and that information has been given by PW.2 Somaraj Urs. He submits that PW.1 on receiving credible information went along with PW.2 to the spot and found the dead body of the wild elephant. PW.2 has fully supported the case of the prosecution regarding unauthorised connection of electricity taken by the accused and also causing death of wild elephant. 14. Though PWs.3, 4 and 11 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the entire case of the prosecution has been thrown out and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. However, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with further evidence of PW.6 have supported the case of the prosecution. Further all the materials available on record reveals that the accused had taken unauthorized electricity connection in the landed property and he is responsible for the death of wild elephant as per Ex.P9 the postmortem report issued by PW.8. 15. However, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with further evidence of PW.6 have supported the case of the prosecution. Further all the materials available on record reveals that the accused had taken unauthorized electricity connection in the landed property and he is responsible for the death of wild elephant as per Ex.P9 the postmortem report issued by PW.8. 15. All these contentions are taken by learned HCGP in this appeal and further contend that there are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the well considered judgment rendered by the trial Court and the appeal is devoid of merit and prays for dismissal of the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 16. It is in this context of the contentions as taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and so also, the counter made by the learned HCGP for the State in this matter, it is relevant to refer Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 which reads as under: “55. Cognizance of offences.—No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of any person other than— (a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or (aa) the Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IV A; or (ab) Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or (ac) Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or (b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government; or (bb) the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38; or (c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid.” 17. The above said provision is a mandatory provision which debars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act except on the complaint by a person authorised under the said provision. The said provision is meticulously read, it does not include the Police Officers to file any charge sheet or a private complaint. The above said provision is a mandatory provision which debars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act except on the complaint by a person authorised under the said provision. The said provision is meticulously read, it does not include the Police Officers to file any charge sheet or a private complaint. Moreover, Section 55 of the Act contemplates that a complaint has to be filed with reference to any of the provisions under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. Therefore, it goes without saying that the Court has to fall back upon Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. to ascertain what exactly meant by a complaint. Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “2(d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation.-A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant.” 18. On a plain reading of this provision, which clearly discloses that the complaint shall be oral or in writing directly to a Magistrate and it is specifically excludes the police to report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. But in the instant case, PW.1 – the Range Forest Officer has filed a written complaint as per Ex.P1 and based upon his complaint the criminal law was set into motion by recording the FIR as per Ex.P10. Subsequent to the recording of FIR, the investigating officer took the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 429 of IPC and so also Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act and Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, before the court having jurisdiction. 19. There is no dispute that on filing of the complaint by PW.1 as per Ex.P1 on 04.12.2007 regarding death of wild elephant in the land belonging to Raju, S/o Siddegowda. Whereas Ex.P2 is the spot Mahazar drawn on 05.12.2007. 19. There is no dispute that on filing of the complaint by PW.1 as per Ex.P1 on 04.12.2007 regarding death of wild elephant in the land belonging to Raju, S/o Siddegowda. Whereas Ex.P2 is the spot Mahazar drawn on 05.12.2007. As per the said document there was an agricultural land measuring 5 acres where Ragi crops was grown and this land was belonging to Raju, S/o Siddegowda. On the western side of the land belonging to Raju an elephant had died. To the further western side, the land belonging to Prabha was situated at about 27 feet away. The said Prabha had grown Ragi crops in his field and had drawn barbed wire fence surrounding his land by using wooden clubs and stone pillar. The said binding wire was tied to the fence. There was also a residential house belonging to Prabha and it had electric connection. There was a switch board on the outer wall of the house and from the switch board, unauthorsied electric connection was taken to the binding wire surrounding the fence as alleged. As the elephant had come from the land belonging to Raju and came in contact with the unauthorsied electric connection in the fence had died due to electrocution. The aluminum wire and zinc wire which were used for drawing unauthorized electric connection and wooden clubs three in numbers were planted surrounding the land were also seized. But the wooden clubs three in numbers which indicated at Ex.P3 which was subjected to photographs and Exs.P5, P6 and P7 are the contradictory statement of Pws.3 to 5. But these witnesses have given their statements before the Investigating officer during the course of investigation. But their evidence which were contradictory to the evidence of PW.1, the Range Forest Officer who filed complaint as per Ex.P1 and based upon his complaint the criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Crime No.139/2007 for the aforesaid offences. But subsequent to registration of the crime, the case was took up for investigation by the investigating officer and during the course of investigation, they drew the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 whereby PW.1 has subscribed his signature along with signature of PWs.2, 6 and 9. PW.11 – Krishnappa was also subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and his statement is got marked at Ex.P11 which is the contradictory statement. PW.11 – Krishnappa was also subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and his statement is got marked at Ex.P11 which is the contradictory statement. But at a cursory glance of the evidence of PWs.3, 4, 5 and 11 on the part of the prosecution is contradictory to the evidence of PW.1 who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P1 and so also, the fulcrum of Ex.P2 – spot mahazar and so also the substance of Ex.P10 – FIR said to have been recorded by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. 20. PW.7 – Anil Kumar has issued a report as per Ex.P8 regarding M.O.1 – 30 feet long insulated aluminium wire and M.O.2 – 50 feet long binding wire and he has stated in report that electricity would flow through MOs.1 and 2 and if the wild animal such as elephant if come into contact with the said wire, electricity supply will flow and it will die due to electrocution. 21. PW.8 – Dr.Kushalappa, conducted the post mortem over the dead body of the wild elephant and issued Ex.P9. As per Ex.P9 the wild elephant aged about 18 to 20 years had died due to cardiac arrest and shock due to electrocution. 22. PW.10 – Shashikiran has given a Report as per Ex.P11 which goes to show the details of the electric supply from Bankavadi feeder on 03.12.2007. As per this document, there was 3 phase and single phase supply on 3.12.2007 during the period specified therein. 23. The prosecution has bank upon the aforesaid evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 429 of IPC and so also, the offence under the Electricity Act inclusive of offence under Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act. But the independent witnesses such as PWs.3, 4, 5 and 11 have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution and consequently the contradictory statement of these witnesses were got marked as per Exs.P5, P6, P7 and P12. But unless to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, it cannot be arrived at a conclusion against the accused person. This contention is also taken by learned counsel for the appellant based upon the evidence of aforesaid witnesses. But unless to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, it cannot be arrived at a conclusion against the accused person. This contention is also taken by learned counsel for the appellant based upon the evidence of aforesaid witnesses. But the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence even though the case is entirely based upon circumstantial evidence relating to the death of wild elephant and the accused namely Prabha is the cause for death of the wild elephant by electrocution. 24. As already been stated that the criminal law was set into motion by filing of the complaint by PW.1 who is a responsible Range Forest Officer. PW.2 had seen the dead elephant for the first time which was lying at a distance of 10 feet from neither the land nor fencing area of Accused – Prabha. Based upon the information given by PW.2 that PW.1 who visited the scene of crime as where the wild elephant was lying dead in the land belonging to Raju, S/o Siddegowda alleged that he had given unauthorized connection to the fencing put around the land in order to protect the crops. Based upon the complaint as per Ex.P1 initially the criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Crime No.139/2007 as where the dead body of wild elephant was lying at a distance of 10 feet from the land of accused Prabha. But the complaint was filed on 04.12.2007 on securing information by PW.2. On 05.12.2007 the police went to the scene of crime and conducted spot mahazar as per ex.P2 in the presence of PWs.1 and 2 who are the official witnesses and so also, PWs.6 and 9 who were secured to act as panch witnesses. But Ex.P3 is the photographs subjected to 3 wooden clubs alleged to have been used to put around the fencing around the land of accused – Prabha and laid the live wire or otherwise to say drawn live wire by using M.O.1 insulated aluminium wire and M.O.2 – binding wire. But Ex.P3 is the photographs subjected to 3 wooden clubs alleged to have been used to put around the fencing around the land of accused – Prabha and laid the live wire or otherwise to say drawn live wire by using M.O.1 insulated aluminium wire and M.O.2 – binding wire. But wooden clubs three in numbers alleged to have been subjected at Ex.P3 – photographs but the same has not been produced by the prosecution in order to prove that the wooden clubs have been used by the accused for the purpose of drawing electric line unauthorisedly from his house to the wire which laid by him by putting around the fencing of his land for the purpose of protection of his Ragi crops. But initially the legal action was initiated against the person namely Raju, S/o Siddegowda who is responsible for taking unauthorized connection to the fence put around his landed property. But during the course of investigation it was also observed that accused also had drawn the fencing surrounding his land by using stone pillars and also wooden clubs and had tied the binding wire to the fencing put around the landed property for the purpose of protection of ragi crops. Whereas the accused – Prabha was residing in the house itself in the said landed property and wherein the electric connection was alleged to have been taken by him. But the switch board was fixed on the outer wall of the house and by using the aluminium wire unauthorized connection was taken to the land from the switch board which is situated about 25 feet away from his house. But the allegation against the accused is that he has taken unauthorised connection from his house to the fence by using insulated wire and binding wire as per M.Os.1 and 2 and committed the alleged offence. 25. PW.5 – Jayamma is the mother of the accused and this witness was subjected to examination, but she did not withstood her statement on the part of the prosecution to support to the version of her statement. But her son who is the accused had a landed property at Hirehalli village by avocation as an agriculturist and he had grown ragi crops and also growing cotton in the land. He had a residential house situated in the agricultural land itself. But her son who is the accused had a landed property at Hirehalli village by avocation as an agriculturist and he had grown ragi crops and also growing cotton in the land. He had a residential house situated in the agricultural land itself. He had drawn fencing surrounding the landed property with a barbed wire and stone pillars. But PWs.1 and 2 though they are the material witnesses on the part of the prosecution but PW.1 – M.S.Kantharaju who is a responsible Range Forest Officer who got information about the death of wild elephant from PW.2 who is the staff member and inspected the scene of crime and found that the elephant aged 18 to 20 years was lying dead and thereafter he had filed complaint as per Ex.P1 and also he had noticed that the house belonging to accused – Prabha situated near the scene of crime. Therefore, he drew the spot mahazar on 05.12.2007. He had noticed 27 feet long insulated aluminium wire. But in M.O.1 it indicates as 30 feet long insulated aluminium wire and M.O.2 – 50 feet long binding wire. 26. PW.8 – Dr.A.B.Kushalappa had been subjected examination on the part of the prosecution he had conducted post mortem over the dead body of the elephant and he issued PM report as per Ex.P9. He has stated in his evidence that he has conducted the post mortem over the dead body of the elephant and noticed some burn marks over the trunk and due to electrocution and cause of death of wild elephant due to electrocution. Therefore, he had issued the PM report as per Ex.P9. 27. At a cursory glance of the entire evidence of the prosecution one can infer that the wild elephant aged about 18 to 20 years was moving from one place to another place in search of food in the forest area and also entered into the land if there are some crops and it is only for food. But while it was in search of food, alleged to have come into contact with a live wire as per M.Os.1 and 2 which were seized by the investigating officer during the course of investigation and also subjected to photographs wooden clubs three in number as per Ex.P3. But while it was in search of food, alleged to have come into contact with a live wire as per M.Os.1 and 2 which were seized by the investigating officer during the course of investigation and also subjected to photographs wooden clubs three in number as per Ex.P3. But accused – Prabha by avocation who is also a farmer and he had a residential house in his landed property by taking electricity supply to his house and had put a switch board on the outer wall of the house and it was situated about 10 feet away from the house. But there is an allegation made against the accused that he had taken unauthorized electric connection from his house to the fence which was put around his landed property due to which the wild elephant came into contact with the live wire and died. Based upon the complaint filed by PW.1 who is a responsible Range Forest Officer, the criminal law was set into motion initially against one Raju, S/o Siddegowda. Subsequent to registration of the crime, investigation was commenced and during the course of investigation that the investigating agency noticed that the land of said Raju and also land of accused – Prabha. But the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances shall be established by the prosecution and every link of circumstances should be established by the prosecution without giving any clouds of doubts. But in the instant case, there is no dispute about the death of wild elephant aged about 18 to 20 years by inflicting burns on the trunk area. But post mortem report at Ex.P9 indicates as the cause of death due to electrocution. Whether the death is due to electrocution specifically or electrocution marks on the trunk or even on the tongue of the elephant in the land of accused, as where the scene of crime situated, it is an important aspect on the part of the prosecution and that evidence requires to be established by the prosecution without giving any clouds of doubt for securing conviction. But naturally the farmers have been putting some sort of fencing wire and when the fence wire has been put around either to be termed as barbed fence and even on the day light or even after sunset, whether they have to be given a link by drawing the line of electricity wire to give the link to the wire for the purpose of either protecting the crops or protecting the crops from the wild animals it should be established by the prosecution by furnishing worth while evidence. But the appellant/accused who was residing in the land by constructing the house has drawn the unauthorized electric connection by using M.Os.1 and 2 insulated aluminium wire and long binding wire and due to electric connection to those M.Os.1 and 2 and also using wooden clubs which has been subjected in photographs at Ex.P3 as contended by prosecution. These are all the material evidence on the part of the prosecution and this evidence requires to be established by the prosecution without giving room to any doubt to prove the guilt of the accused. 28 In the criminal justice delivery system the appreciation of evidence it is vested with the trial Court as under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. But in the instant case there is no doubt about the death of wild elephant as per Ex.P9 – PM report. Initially the complaint was registered by PW.1 by specifically mentioning the name of one Raju, S/o Siddegowda as accused. But the land of Raju and the land of accused-Prabha and the distance between the land of those persons even though it is immaterial but it is the domain vested with the investigating agency to ascertain the truth relating offences lugged against the accused and so also, the death of wild elephant which alleged to have come into contact with the live wire used by whether Raju or Prabha. But the prosecution is required to facilitate the worthwhile evidence for securing conviction. But tilting the balance is necessary in terms of the appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution and the death of wild elephant aged about 18 to 20 years as per Ex.P9. 29. But the prosecution is required to facilitate the worthwhile evidence for securing conviction. But tilting the balance is necessary in terms of the appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution and the death of wild elephant aged about 18 to 20 years as per Ex.P9. 29. The elephant which was moving from one place to another place in search of food had come into contact with the live wire and there were some burn injuries on the trunk and also tongue area as per Ex.P9 – PM Report issued by PW.8 – Doctor who conducted post mortem over the dead body of the elephant. But the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and each of the circumstance shall have to be established by the prosecution by putting forth worthwhile evidence and also chain link circumstances it is always to be acceptable. The prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused by facilitating positive, consistent and also acceptable evidence without giving any doubt. But whenever the doubt arises, the benefit of such doubt should always be in favour of the accused alone. The appreciation of evidence it is only in a proper perspective by dwelling into the evidence on the part of the prosecution and so also, on the part of the evidence which is facilitated by the prosecution. But in the instant case, the greater responsibility fell on the Forest Department and equally on the CHESCOM as wherein they have given power connection to the dwelling houses. But when the landed property is situated nearby the forest area naturally the farmers would have taken connection of electricity to their houses for dwelling purpose and that electricity connection lead into these kind of activities as narrated in the complaint as alleged. Both the officers of the Forest Department in the Range forest area and also the CHESCOM authorities are having a greater responsibilities by frequently visiting to that area and ascertain whether any wooden clubs have been put around the lands of the farmers to protect their crops from the wild animals or the intruders entering into their land. But merely because the farmers have put the fencing in order to protect the crops but they would also taken care of wild animals which are the public property and the life of wild animals is more important as equally to the human beings, but both lives should be protected. But merely because the farmers have put the fencing in order to protect the crops but they would also taken care of wild animals which are the public property and the life of wild animals is more important as equally to the human beings, but both lives should be protected. But on filing of complaint by PW.1 – the Range Forest Officer, the criminal law was set into motion initially against the Raju, S/o Siddegowda. During the course of investigation, he drew the mahazar and also having subjected the photographs at Ex.P3 regarding the wooden clubs three in number and so also, M.Os.1 and 2 of the 30 feet aluminium wire and 50 feet length binding wire alleged to be seized. These are all the theory that requires to be established by the prosecution without giving any clouds of doubt. But in the instant case, the theory put forth by the prosecution founds to be doubtful and when the doubt is created in the mind of the Court those clouds of doubt always to be extended in favour of the accused alone. Therefore, in terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, it is opined that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in Spl.C.No.75/2008 dated 12.04.2011 is hereby set-aside. The accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 429 of IPC and Section 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act and Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.