Allowed

Smt.Aduri W/O Mulami Adivasi Rajput v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2021CRL.A/100123/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal regarding alleged sandalwood theft. The court acquitted the appellants, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural violations, lack of expert certification, and unsupported evidence.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellants are acquitted and set at liberty.

Smt.Aduri W/O Mulami Adivasi Rajput Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100123/2020

¶7

1 . SMT.ADURI W/O MULAMI ADIVASI RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶8

2 . SMT.GRAMABAI W/O TANAKSINGH AGED ABOUT: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶9

3 . JAMUNDI ADIVASI AGED ABOUT: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶10

APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/O: VIRUHALLI, POST: PARADI MOHALA, NITIRA, TQ: KATANI, DIST: JABALPUR, STATE: MADHYA PRADESH.

¶11

4 . SMT.SONIYA TATA ADIVASI, AGED ABOUT: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BILORI, TQ: KATANI, DIST: JABALPUR, STATE: MADHYA PRADESH.

¶12

...APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI T. M.NADAF, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RFO, DHARWAD RANGE, DHARWAD,

¶16

¶17

REPT. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶18

……….RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI HCGP)

¶20

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. AND PRAYED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 23.08.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN S.C.NO.40/2018 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 86, 87, 73(d) AND 24(e) OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND SENTENCED THEM TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 5 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF 50,000/EACH WITH DEFAULT SENTENCE OF S.I. FOR ONE YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 86 OF KF ACT. FURTHER SENTENCED THEM TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 5 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF 50,000/- EACH WITH DEFAULT SENTENCE OF S.I. FOR ONE YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 87, FURTHER SENTENCED THEM TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 73(d) OF K.F. ACT, FURTHER SENTENCED THEM TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 24(e) OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 AND FURTHER SENTENCED THEM TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC IN SOFAR AS APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 3, 4 AND 7 AND ETC.,

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Sessions Case No.40/2018 dated 23.08.2019, wherein accused Nos.1 to 4, 7 and 8 found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 86, 87, 73(d) and 24(e) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short ‘the KF Act’) sentencing imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of `50,000/- each for

¶25

the offence punishable under Section 86 of the KF Act and 5 years and fine of `50,000/- each for the offence punishable

¶26

under Section 87 of the KF Act, 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 73(d) of the KF Act and further 6 months for Section 24(e) of KF Act and 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶28

appellants/accused Nos.1,3, 4 and 7 and learned HCGP for respondent-State.

¶29

¶30

The ranks of the parties before the trial Court is

¶31

retained for the purpose of convenience.

¶32

The facts of the case of prosecution is that the Range

¶33

Forest Officer, Dharwad Range filed charge sheet against 13 accused persons for the above said offences alleging that on 22.10.2017 the P.W.1 received a credible information that in the limits of Kotur beet at Gungargatti (Neeralkatti) forest some persons cutting and removing the sandalwood trees. Then the forest officials and P.Ws.2 and 3 panchas went to the spot, where they found there were 9 peoples were cutting the sandalwood trees and transporting the same. Immediately, they apprehended 4 accused persons from them, however 5

¶34

persons were managed to escape from the clutches of the team. On enquiry, they revealed the names of accused Nos.1 to 4 i.e., Aduri Mulami Adivasi, Pungi Husum Adivasi, Gramabai

¶35

and Jamundu Adivasi and on further enquiry they also informed about the names of other accused against whom a split up case was registered.

¶36

¶37

During the investigation, they were also said to have arrested some other accused persons and seized 15 Kgs of sandalwood under the panchanama. Then all the accused persons were produced before the Court, out of them 2 accused persons i.e., accused Nos.5 and 6 said to be juvenile offenders. Thereafter, charge sheet came to be against accused Nos.1 to 13. After filing of charge sheet, trial Court framed charges against accused Nos.1 to 4, 7 and 8 and read over to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶38

In order to prove the case of prosecution, in all 10 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 10, and there were 19 documents were marked as Ex.Ps.1 to 19 and 18 materials

¶39

objects as M.Os.1 to 18. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded under the incriminating materials, same was read over and explained to the accused. The case of the accused was totally denial, but not chosen to lead any evidence. After hearing the arguments, trial Court found guilty of accused Nos.1 to 4, 7 and 8 and convicted them and sentenced them to undergo as stated supra vide order dated

¶40

¶41

28.08.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7 have preferred this appeal.

¶42

The learned counsel for the appellants has contended

¶43

that the judgment of trial Court is not sustainable in law. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record. The P.Ws.2 and 3 the independent witnesses not supported the prosecution case and the trial Court convicted only on the basis of the official witnesses. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 to 6 and 10, the Forest Officials visited the spot after receiving the information and arrested the accused persons and seized the sandalwood billets and after arresting the accused persons brought to the Police Station, later a FIR has been registered which amount to investigation started prior to the registration of the case it by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and subsequent to the investigation the Forest officials also arrested accused Nos.5 to 8 on 06.11.2017, they seized another 15 sandalwood billets weighing 15 Kgs which is nothing to do with the present Crime No.8/2017 registered by P.W.1. It is entirely all together different offence, but they have filed charge sheet in one case. Even though, it is a different offence and there is no evidence

¶44

¶45

to show these sandalwood billets were also seized were cut and removed from the Dharwad Range forest area and he further contended that the sample sandalwood billets were certified by the P.W.7, who is not an expert and was not produced any certificate as per Section 62C of the KF Act in order to show he is an expert. Further, it is contended that Ex.P.6 is the certificate issued by P.W.7, which is not the same certificate which is examined by this witness as in the certificate the crime number was mentioned as 41/2017-18, whereas this case pertaining to crime No.8/2017-18 dated 22.10.2017. The certificate which was produced before the Court is pertaining to the certificate belongs to some other property. Therefore, the Ex.P.6 cannot be acceptable for proving the guilt of the accused. Without considering all these aspects, the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted, which is not sustainable in law.

¶46

Learned counsel further contended that accused Nos.1

¶47

to 4 are all together different cases. Though, accused No.7 is not at all found in cutting the tree, but he has convicted under Section 86 of the KF Act, which is not correct. He cannot be

¶48

¶49

punished with the offence punishable under Section 86 of the KF Act. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.

¶50

Per Contra , the learned HCGP has supported the

¶51

judgment of the trial Court and contended that the Forest Officials who are arrested the accused persons and seized the sandalwood during the course of their regular duty and merely the P.Ws.2 and 3 the panchas not supported the case of prosecution and their evidence cannot be thrown out and he further contended that there may be some discrepancies in mentioning the crime number in Ex.P.6 as Crime No.41/201718, that itself is not a ground to reject the certificate Ex.P.6 issued by the P.W.7. Learned HCGP further contended that the Forest Official got the credible information and has intimated to his superiors, thereafter they went to the spot regarding cognizable offences were committed, therefore without delay they rushed to the spot, apprehended the accused persons and seized the materials and thereafter registered a case, it cannot be said investigation of the case was started prior to the registration of case. It is only a technical defect, which is

¶52

¶53

curable one. The evidence of the prosecution P.Ws.1, 4 to 10 all corroborates with each other with the documents and material objects, thereby the prosecution successful in proving the guilt of the accused in cutting and removing the sandalwood from the forest area and committed theft under Section 379 of IPC and hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶54

10 . Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned HCGP, points that arise for consideration of this Court are,

¶55

Whether the prosecution is successful in proving the case against these accused persons that on 22.10.2017 the accused were cutting and removing the sandalwood billets at Gungaragatti forest area and they removed and transporting them, thereby they committed offences punishable under Sections 86, 87, 73(d) and 24(e) of KF Act and also for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC?

¶56

Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court call for interference by this Court?

¶57

¶58

This Court being the first appellate Court requires reappreciation of the evidence on record, it is necessary to cursory look at the prosecution witnesses which is as under :

¶59

The P.W.1 the Forest Guard-Kallappa Yamanappa Kengar, has deposed that on 22.10.2017 at about 10.00 a.m. when he was in the office, he has received a credible information as some thief committing theft of sandalwood at Gungaragatti reserved forest area. Immediately, he informed same to his higher officer C.Ws.4 to 10 and secured 2 panchas and all of them went to the forest area, where they saw 9 persons were present along with the sandalwood billets, they having knife, two mobile phones. Immediately, they apprehended those persons, out of them, 4 persons were caught hold by them, other persons were ran away from the spot, they seized 7 Kgs of sandalwood billets and 2 Kgs of sandalwood chakkies under the panchanama. He has identified a sample sandalwood billet as M.O.1 and nine saws as M.O.2. He also identified two axes as M.O.3 and knife as M.O.4, two swords as M.O.5, stones are M.O.6, two mobiles phones as

¶60

¶61

M.Os.7 and 8. He also identified 4 accused persons as per accused Nos.1 to 4 in the Court. He further says, he has registered a case as per Ex.P.2 FIR. He further deposed that on 06.11.2017, he himself and his higher officers along with panchas also went to Daddi village of Hukkeri taluka, where they found 4 accused persons, they are accused Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 and arrested them and they seized 15 kgs 250 grams of sandalwood 5 billets from them and they prepared panchanama as per Ex.P.3. He also identified the accused Nos.7 and 8 before the Court. He has supported the case of prosecution.

¶62

P.W.2 and 3 panchas who are the independent witnesses, they were not supported the case of prosecution and they turned hostile.

¶63

P.W.4-Rashidabai another Forest Guard, P.W.5-

¶64

Rajashree, Deputy RFO, P.W.6-Mohammed Khali Tallur, another Deputy RFO were also supported the case of prosecution, they have given evidence on par with the P.W.1. P.W.7Chandrakant, RFO, Kalaghatagi Range given evidence that on 10.01.2018, he has examined 10 sandalwood billets and after

¶65

¶66

examination, he has certified as those are 10 sandalwood billets. He has identified said 10 sandalwood billets samples as per M.Os.1 to 10. Ex.P.6 is the Certificate issued by P.W.7.

¶67

P.W.8-Vitthal Joni, Forest Guard, he has deposed that he has prepared Ex.P.3-panchanama on 06.11.2017 and signed as scribe, while apprehending the accused Nos.5 to 8 and he also identified the sample billets seized. P.W.9-Krishna Dhanave, who is Deputy Range Forest Officer, who also accompanied with the P.W.1 for raiding and seizing the sandalwood billets and in arresting the accused Nos.1 to 4 and Ex.P.1 identified by him. He also deposed that on 06.11.2017 again they apprehended the accused Nos.5 to 8 along with mobile phones and sandalwood billets and he has identified Ex.P.3-panchanama and accused Nos.7 and 8 are the persons apprehended by him.

¶68

P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer, who also accompanied the P.W.1 to the forest area for arresting the accused Nos.1 to 4 and identified Ex.P.1-panchanama and further on 06.11.2017, he also arrested the accused Nos.5 to 8

¶69

¶70

and seized 15 kgs 250 grams of sandalwood billets. He identified M.Os.10 to 18 seized articles i.e., sandalwood billet, Mobile Phones, Adhaar Cards, cash of `14,120, sim card, Bank ID Card etc., After completion of the investigation he has filed the charge sheet.

¶71

Upon considering the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader and on appreciation of the entire evidence on record stated supra, admittedly, the prosecution, in order to prove its case, relied upon the evidence of PWs.1, 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 are the official witnesses who actually participated in the raid and caught hold accused Nos.1 to 4 on the date of the incident i.e. 22.10.2017 and 5 accused are said to have ran away from the spot. Admittedly, the Forest Officials i.e. PW-1 along with PWs.2 and 3-the panch witnesses, PWs.4 to 6 and 8 to 10 all went together in different vehicles and apprehended accused Nos.1 to 4. Ex.P-1 is the panchanama prepared on the spot. The evidence of PW-1, PWs.4 to 6 and 8 to 10 have all stated in categorical terms that on 22.10.2017 at 11.00 am they received a phone call about the commission of offence by

¶72

¶73

some persons in the forest area. Then all of them along with PWs.2 and 3 visited the spot. They found some group of persons were cutting and removing the sandal wood trees. Immediately, they apprehended four persons and five persons fled away. They also seized 9 saws, 2 axe, 2 knives, two swords, 3 mobiles, 5 pieces of sandal wood billets and 2 kgs of sandalwaood chekka. Ex.P-1 reveals, same was prepared on the spot by the Forest Officials between 11.00 am and 5.00 pm on the said day. A detailed panchanama has been prepared. PW-1, after coming back to the police station, on his complaint, FIR-Ex.P-2 was prepared but the police officials have not at all produced any complaint prepared by PW-1. Ex.P-1 is nothing but a panchanama. Admittedly, FIR was registered by PW-1 and the Forest Officials only after arresting the accused and seizing the materials under the seizure panchanama Ex.P-1. Admittedly, the investigation and arrest of the accused all started much prior to the registration of the FIR. Therefore, the FIR is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. In this regard learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari v. State of

¶74

¶75

Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court considering the various aspects of registering the FIR has held that, “ the police cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence” . It has categorically held it is obligatory on the part of the police officer to register the FIR if they receive credible information regarding the cognizable offence committed. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has laid down guidelines at paragraph 120 which reads as follows:

¶76

“ 120. In view of he aforesaid discussion, we hold:

¶77

120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

¶78

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

¶79

120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases

¶80

¶81

where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the compliant, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

¶82

120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

¶83

120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

¶84

120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

¶85

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes

¶86

(b) Commercial offences

¶87

(c) Medical negligence cases

¶88

(d) Corruption case

¶89

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter

¶90

¶91

without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

¶92

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

¶93

120.7. While ensuring the protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

¶94

120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to congnizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatory and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”

¶95

However, the Forest Officials are also considered as Investigating Officials under the Cr.P.C. The action taken by PW-1 and PWs.4 to 10 without registering the FIR, seizing the materials and arresting the accused, is violation of the provisions of law under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.. Thereby, the seizure is not sustainable in law. That apart, learned counsel for the appellants also brought to the notice of this Court that

¶96

¶97

PW-7 is not authorized to certify that the seized billets M.Os.1 to 10 and other materials as sandalwood. In this regard, certificate as required under Section 62-C of the KF Act, is not issued by PW-7. Therefore, the conviction is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Banya Naika v. State by RFO, Bhadravathi Range, Bhadravathi, reported in 2019(3) KCCR 2772, wherein this Court has held that possession of roots and chips of sandalwood, the Range Forest Officer not certifying the articles seized, non examination of any independent witnesses, nonexamination of the Investigating Officer and non-preparation of panchanama, are all discrepancies and conviction cannot be sustainable.

¶98

In the case on hand, admittedly, PW-7 has not issued any certificate as required under Section 62-C of KF Act. PW-7 has stated that he has undergone training at Forest Training Center, Barnihart, Gauhathi, Assam, for eighteen months. He has stated that he has examined ten billets and out of his experience, he stated that they were the sandalwood

¶99

¶100

billets. But he has not issued the certificate as required under Section 62-C of the KF Act.

¶101

For convenience, Section 62-C of the Karnataka

¶102

Forest Act, 1963 is extracted as below:

¶103

“ 62-C. Certificate of Forest Officer to be an evidence.- Any document purporting to be a certificate under the hand of a Forest Officer not below the rank of a Range Forest Officer who has undergone training in the examination of forest produce and who is so authorized by the State Government in this behalf in respect of forest produce, submitted to him for examination and report, may be used as evidence on the facts stated in such certificate in any proceedings under this Act, but the Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall on the application of the prosecution or the accused person summon and examine any such Forest officer as to the subject matter of his certificate.”

¶104

Admittedly, though PW-7 certified the billets as

¶105

sandalwood billets but he has not issued the certificate as required under Section 62-C of the Forest Act but has only certified as “sandalwood billets”. The prosecution not produced any document to show that PW-7 is an authorized person to issue the certificate. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is not sustainable.

¶106

¶107

Apart from that, learned counsel for the appellants

¶108

has also brought to the notice of this Court that Ex.P-6 is the certificate where Sl.No.2 refers to the crime number and date it is mentioned as R.O.No.41/2017-18 dated 22.10.2017.

¶109

Admittedly, the present case is registered by the Forest Official in FIR No.8/2017-18 dated 22.10.2017. It appears that the said witness PW-7 has examined some other sandalwood piece which was seized in Crime No.41/2017 and the same is issued and produced in this case along with the charge sheet. Therefore, on this ground, the certificate Ex.P-6 relied upon by the prosecution is not acceptable and based upon Ex.P-6 the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is also not sustainable. Further on perusal of Ex.P-6 it goes to show that the identity mark and number of the article sent for examination is shown as KNFD G9K but ‘9’ is corrected by using whitener wiping the earlier number and even at Sl.No.5the sandalwood billets shown as ‘15’ is corrected as ‘10’. Even at the bottom of the statement/opinion, he has stated that ‘Sl.No.1 to 5’ were sandal wood billets which is corrected as ‘1 to 10’. These corrections are not initialed by PW-7 at Ex.P-6

¶110

¶111

and crime No., seal No. identification number and the number of billets are all different from the present case, as it is only ten pieces and Crime No.8/2017. Therefore, on this ground also, Ex.P-6 cannot be acceptable in order to say that the seized article are the sandalwood billets which were sized from the accused.

¶112

That apart, PWs.2 and 3 are the independent panch witnesses. Though they have signed Ex.P-1, but turned hostile not supporting the case of the prosecution. Learned Government Pleader argued that the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 to 10 are the official witnesses and their evidence cannot be thrown out as tainted witnesses or interested witnesses. Of course they are the official witnesses and their evidence cannot be thrown out as tainted or interested witnesses if their evidence is true and credible to believe the version of the prosecution. However, by looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the action taken by the Forest Officials without registering the FIR, seizing and arresting the accused is in violation of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari’s case(supra) and also

¶113

¶114

Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Manipulation in Ex.P-6 and non-issuing the certificate as per Section 62-C of the KP Act, nonsupporting of the independent witnesses, evidence of PWs.1 and 4 to 10 are not sufficient to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

¶115

Therefore, I hold that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused for having committed the offence beyond all reasonable doubt. Though learned counsel for the appellants argued that accused No.7 cannot be convicted under Section 86 of the Forest Act, as he was arrested subsequent on 06.11.2017, Section 86 is not applicable to accused No.7.

¶116

In view of my finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants/accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7 beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused and the accused are to be acquitted.

¶117

Accordingly, I pass the following order.

¶118

¶119

The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.08.2019 passed by the learned Principal District ad Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in S.C. No.40/2018 is hereby set aside. The appellants/accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7 are acquitted of the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 86, 87, 73(d), 24(e) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

¶120

Fine amount, if any deposited is ordered to be refunded to the appellants/accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7. The accused persons are in custody. They are set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

¶121

The operative portion of this judgment was ordered to be sent to the concerned jail authorities.

¶122

Kmv from para 17 till end

¶123

Sd/JUDGE

¶124

CKK

Smt.Aduri W/O Mulami Adivasi Rajput v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Aduri W/O Mulami Adivasi Rajput v. the State of Karnataka

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

Ramakrishna S/O Shankarayan Hegde Vs Mahendra S/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde

Shri.Gajbarsab Gulabsab Multani Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Naik S/O Tulaja Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Ishwar S/O. Ramappa Kumbar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bande Navaz Rashmi S/O Vajirsab Rashmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumantha S/O Pakkirappa Vs the State of Karnataka