Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Gouse Peer @ Munna S/O Syed Sab on 11 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.61)
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2018
:PRESENT :
Sri S.K.Vantigodi, B.A., LL.B.,
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No. 416 / 2013
COMPLAINANT:- The State of Karnataka,
By Forest Mobile Squad,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs
ACCUSED:- 1. Gouse Peer @ Munna S/o Syed Sab
Aged about 44 years,
r/at: Madalu Grama,
Kanakatte Hobli,
Arsikere Taluk, Hassan District
2. Ranganatha @ Rangaswamy
S/o Omkara Murthy
Aged about 33 years
r/at: Kampanahalli grama
Huliyaru Hobli, Gandalu Post
Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk
Tumakuru District
Date of offence 12.01.2011
Date of report of offence 13.01.2011
2 SC 416/2013
Name of the complainant N.Mahesh, Forest Guard
Date of commencement of 29.04.2016
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 29.09.2016
Offences complained of Sec.86 and 87 of Karnataka
Forest Act 1963 r/w Sec.165 of
Karnataka Forest Rules 1969 and
Sec.379 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 and 2 are found
guilty.
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri K.N.Pyarejan, Advocate for
accused
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet filed by Forest Mobile Squad, Bengaluru against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Sec.2(7), 62, 71A, 80, 84, 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act and under Sec.144, 155, 156, 157 r/w 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules 1969 alleging that on 12.01.2011 at about 8.00 p.m. while the Forest Mobile Squad was patrolling in the campus of Indian Wood Science and Technical Institute, accused No.1 and 2 along with absconding accused No.3 entered into said campus and cut two sandal wood trees into ten billets weighing about 90 kg, dishonestly with an intention to take away said sandal wood billets out of the campus 3 SC 416/2013 without the permission or consent of the complainant authority and thereby accused committed the above said offences.
2. After filing of the charge sheet, accused No.1 to 3 appeared before the Court of Magistrate through their counsel and they were on bail. Before committal of the case, accused No.3 remained absent and hence the learned Magistrate ordered to split up case against accused No.3 and thereafter, committed the case against accused No.1 and 2 to Prl. City Civil and Sessions Court and the same came to be registered as SC No.416/2013 and made over to this Court for trial. The copy of charge sheet is furnished to Accused No.1 and 2.
3. The charge against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act has been framed by my predecessor and the contents of the charge for the above said offences read over in the language known to accused No.1 and 2 and they denied the same and claimed to be tried. When the case was posted for final arguments, on an application moved by learned Public Prosecutor, this court has framed additional Charge for offence punishable under Sec. 379 of IPC 4 SC 416/2013 besides offences punishable under Sec. 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined in all six witnesses as PW1 to 6 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to P5 and M.O.1 to M.O.4.
5. Thereafter, the statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded. The case of the defence is total denial of prosecution case and the defence examined none and no documents are marked.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for state and learned counsel for accused. Perused the records.
7. The only points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 12.01.2011 at about
8.00 p.m. while the Forest Mobile Squad was patrolling in the campus of Indian Wood Science and Technical Institute, accused No.1 and 2 along with absconding accused No.3 entered into said campus and cut two sandal wood trees into 5 SC 416/2013 ten billets weighing about 90 kgs that were belonging to Government with the help of two saw cutters and thereby accused no.1 and 2 committed offences punishable U/sec. 86 of Karnataka Forest Act?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, time, place and circumstances, accused No.1 and 2 along with absconding accused No.3 illegally possessed ten sandal wood billets weighing about 90 kgs by cutting the sandal wood trees from the campus of Indian Wood Science and Technical Institute, with an intention to sell the same and thereby the accused no.1 and 2 committed offences punishable U/sec. 87 of Karnataka Forest Act?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time, place and circumstances, the accused No.1 and 2 along with absconding accused No.3, have dishonestly cut two sandal wood trees into ten billets weighing about 90 kgs without the permission or consent of the complainant authority, with an intention to take those sandal wood billets out of the campus and thereby 6 SC 416/2013 accused no.1 and 2 committed offence punishable under Sec. 379 of IPC?
4) What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 to 3:- In the Affirmative Point No.3:- As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 3:- The prosecution in support of its case got examined six witnesses as PW1 to PW6 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to 5 and M.O.1 to 4. I have carefully gone through the evidence of these witnesses and contents of the documents.
10. PW 1 to 3 are eye witnesses to the incident of theft of sandal wood billets. PW 4 is forest official who examined seized billet and issued certificate to that effect. PW 6 is the investigation officer who filed charge sheet. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW 1 to 3 who are the Forest officials cum eye witnesses to the incident of theft of sandal wood billets to prove its allegations. Now I proceed to evaluate, analyze and appreciate the evidence of each witness one by one.
7 SC 416/2013
11. PW1 being the guard in the Forest Mobile Squad has spoken to the facts that on 12.1.2011 himself along with PW2, 3 and other guards in all seven guards, were on patrolling duty at about 8.00 p.m. in the premises Indian Wood Sciences and Technical Institute, Bengaluru. At that point of time, they heard sound of cutting of tree with saw. On hearing such a sound, they went near the place and saw that two sandal wood trees were cut into pieces and on search of the premises, they found presence of two persons who were hiding in the bush near the place where the sandal wood trees were cut. They also saw ten sandal wood billets and two saw cutters and two bags lying over said place.
12. On surrounding said place, himself and other guards were to apprehend those two persons i.e., accused No.1 and 2. On enquiry, accused No.1 and 2 revealed that they were sent to the said camps for cutting sandal wood pieces by one Ameerjan i.e accused no.3 who had fled away in the darkness by seeing the arrival of the Forest Guards. Then mahazar was drawn and the sandal wood billets, saw cutters and two bags were seized. Since it was night hour, no independent persons were available to act as panchas and hence the forest guards themselves acted as panchas 8 SC 416/2013 and obtained their signatures on the mahazar as panchas. Then, returned to office and registered the case against accused persons for forest offences. Thereafter, along with remand application and mahazar, the accused No.1 and 2 were produced before court. This witness identified mahazar Ex.P.1, FIR as per Ex.P.2 and he identified the photographs of sandal wood billets, bags, and two saw cutters as Ex.P.3 and 4. He identified accused No.1 and 2. He also identified the seized bags as M.O.1 and 2, two saw cutters as M.O.3 and 4.
13. In the cross-examination this witness states that there is compound wall around Indian Wood Sciences and Technical Institute. Sadashivanagara police station is located near the said office. Two roads are passing by the side of office. Security Guards were deputed in the premises through out day and night. He cannot now remember the colour of clothes worn by the accused no.1 and 2 on that day. He denied the suggestion that a false case is registered against accused for statistical purpose. He denied all other suggestions of defence.
14. PW2 to 4 being the guards in the Forest Mobile Squad have spoken similar facts to that of the evidence of PW1. 9 SC 416/2013
15. A careful appreciation of evidence of Pw1 to 4 with that of contents of Ex.P.1 and 2, makes it amply clear that these accused No.1 and 2 were found cutting sandal wood trees into billets and were caught red-handed by the Forest Mobile Squad on 12.1.2011. Though these witnesses were subjected to cross examination at length, no worth material is elicited from their mouth to disbelieve and discard their evidence. Further, these witnesses categorically deposed that they saw the accused No.1 and 2 hiding in the bushes after cutting sandal wood trees into billets near the place where the two sandal wood trees were cut into pieces. These witnesses identified the accused as the persons who were caught red handed on that day. It reflects from the evidence of these witnesses that M.O.1 to 4 and ten sandal wood billets as reflected in the photographs Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 have been seized by the Forest Mobile Squad by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.1.
16. So, the facts narrated by PW1 to 4 are sufficient to establish that these accused illegally entered into the said premises without any authority or permission and had cut the sandal wood trees into pieces with an intention to sell the same without any authority or permit. Therefore, the essential ingredients of the 10 SC 416/2013 offences alleged under Sec.86 and 87 of Forest Act and offence punishable under Sec. 379 of IPC are clearly attracted from the facts narrated by these witnesses. PW1 to 4 are the eye witnesses who had seen these accused by the side of the place where the sandal wood trees were cut into pieces by using saw M.O.3 and 4. Further, the possession of bags i.e M.O.1 and 2 by the accused near the scene of offence itself indicates that these accused intended to remove and shift the sandal wood billets with an intention to sell the same without any valid permit or license.
17. As such, the evidence of PW1 to 4 is cogent and consistent to prove the charges leveled against these accused persons. Though these witnesses are subjected to cross- examination at length, nothing is elicited from their mouth to disbelieve and discard their evidence. Merely because, the mahazar was drawn in the presence of security guards who were serving in the Forest Department, it does not in any way create doubt as to the drawing of spot mahazar by the Forest Squad. Moreover, there is no hard and fast rule that the mahazar shall be drawn only in the presence of independent witnesses. Anyhow, PW1 has clearly explained the circumstances as to what forced him to draw mahazar 11 SC 416/2013 in the absence of independent witnesses who could not be secured during night hours. Under such circumstances, the drawing of mahazar by the forest squad as per Ex.P.1 without securing the presence of independent, cannot be disbelieved on any count. Moreover, no worth material is elicited from the mouth of these witnesses to disbelieve and discard their evidence except putting suggestions denying the case of prosecution. Hence, the evidence of these witnesses is natural, believable and acceptable one.
18. PW5 is Range Forest Officer who examined the seized sandal wood billets and issued certificate to that effect. This witness has spoken to the fact that on 17.1.2011, the I.O. has produced ten billets weighing 90 kg for examination. On examination of those billets, he opined that those billets are sandal wood billets i.e., Santalum Album and then he issued certificate as per Ex.P.5. He identified the photographs of the sandal wood billets as per Ex.P.3 and 4. In the cross-examination, he states that he has not mentioned the age of those billets. He denied the other suggestions.
19. On perusal of evidence of this witness coupled with the contents of Ex.P.5, it can be said that his evidence is sufficient to hold that he examined the seized 10 sandal wood billets which were 12 SC 416/2013 produced before him and issued certificate to that effect as per Ex.P.5. Therefore, evidence of PW 5 who is a expert and technical witness, corroborates with the seizure of sandal wood billets by PW1 to 4 from the possession of these accused.
20. PW6 being the Range Forest Officer, took up further investigation of this case from PW1, who filed complaint before him along with M.O.1 to 4 and ten sandal wood billets. He registered the same in Cr.No.165.2010-11 and submitted FIR to the court as per Ex.P.2. Then he produced both the accused before the court and recorded statement of witnesses. Then on 15.8.2011 on the information revealed by accused No.1 and 2, he apprehended accused No.3 and produced him before the court on the next day. Then he referred the seized ten billets for scientific examination and obtained report as per photographs of the seized materials and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. This witness denied all the suggestions of learned Counsel for accused. On perusal of evidence of this witness, it can be said that his evidence corroborates the evidence of PW1 to 5 to believe the case of the prosecution.
13 SC 416/2013
21. A careful appreciation of evidence of PW1 to 6 coupled with contents of Ex.P.1 to 5 makes it amply clear that these accused No.1 and 2 were caught red-handed while cutting two sandal wood trees into billets and removing the same from the campus of Indian Wood Science and Technical Institute without any permit or authority to that effect. The evidence of PW1 to 4, itself is sufficient to believe the case of prosecution. The direct evidence of PW1 to 4 clearly establishes the fact that while these accused after cutting sandal wood trees into billets with the help of cutting instruments i.e., M.O.3 and 4 and hiding in the bushes by seeing the arrival of Forest Squad, were caught red handed on the scene of offence and hence their evidence is sufficient to believe the case of prosecution. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW1 to 4 to disbelieve and discard their evidence.
22. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses is cogent, consistent and corroborative to each other to believe that these accused illegally entered into the said premises of Indian Wood Science and Technical Institute and cut two sandal wood trees into billets by using M.O.3 and 4 and were caught red-handed while they were hiding in the bush near the scene of offence. The seizure of 14 SC 416/2013 bags i.e M.O 1 and 2 on the scene of offence establishes the fact that these accused intended to remove and transport the billets for sale. So, the facts stated by PW1 to 4 clearly attract the essential ingredients of offences alleged and to believe the case of prosecution.
23. Moreover, PW1 to 4 being the officials of Forest Mobile Squad have no enmity or ill-will or grudge against these accused to depose falsity against them. The defense set up by the accused that these accused have been falsely implicated by taking the sandal wood billets lying in the premises, is not probable and believable one and same cannot be accepted. Even there is no basis to appreciate the defense that these accused have been implicated falsely by taking unclaimed properties i.e., sandal wood billets. So, the evidence of these witnesses being natural, believable and acceptable one, inspires confidence of this court to believe the case of the prosecution.
24. Further, the evidence of PW5 establishes the fact that the seized 10 sandal wood billets pertain to the trees which were grown up in the campus of Indian Wood Science and Technical Institute at Malleshwaram. Further, the seizure of 10 sandal wood 15 SC 416/2013 billets under mahazar as per Ex.P.1 has been reported to PW6 immediately after the incident, who conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet against all the accused. Further, the seizure has been effected as per the procedure laid down under Sec.62 of Karnataka Forest Act. The mandatory requirements of Sec.62(3) of Forest Act have been complied with. The authorized officer i.e., PW5 issued certificate stating that the billets pertains to sandal wood trees which were cut. As such there is no any deviation from the procedure laid down under Sec.62 (3) of the Forest Act while effecting seizure of 10 sandal wood billets. Such being the case, the evidence available on record is sufficient to believe the case of the prosecution to hold that these accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sec. 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act and offence U/s.379 of IPC.
25. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for accused strenuously argued that no independent witnesses were secured as pancha witnesses to Ex.P.1 and as such drawing of Ex.P.1 is doubtful and hence, prayed to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. But I do not find any force in the said arguments for the reason that, when PW1 to 4 have categorically deposed that since 16 SC 416/2013 no independent witnesses were available during night hours at the time of mahazar, the seizure has been effected in the presence of forest guards and forest mobile squad whose signatures are found on Ex.P.1. So, question of securing presence of any independent witnesses during night hours does not arise. Hence, the seizure of sandal wood billets cannot be disbelieved on any count. Further, the accused have not set up any specific defence to disbelieve the allegations made by the prosecution.
26. Hence, having regard to all these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution relying on the evidence of PW1 to PW6 coupled with contents of Ex.P.1 to 5, has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that these accused illegally entered into the premises of Indian Wood Science and Technical Institute, Malleshwaram and cut two sandal wood trees into 10 billets and illegally possessed and attempted to transport the same without having any valid permit or licence from the competent authority and thereby committed the above said offences. As such, these accused are found guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act 17 SC 416/2013 and the offence punishable under Sec. 379 of IPC and are liable to be convicted and accordingly, I answer point No.1 to 3 in Affirmative.
27. Point No.4:- In view of my findings on point No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty and acting U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., they are convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act and for the offence punishable under Sec. 379 of IPC The judgment is deferred for hearing on sentence.
(Dictated to Judgment writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of January, 2018) (S.K.VANTIGODI) LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
18 SC 416/2013ORDER ON SENTENCE I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as accused No.1 and 2 on sentence. Accused No.1 and 2 submit that they are poor and they are the only earning members in their families and they are having aged parents and small children and they have no other source of income except coolie work and they are first offenders and hence leniency may be shown in imposing punishment on them. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the offences committed by accused No.1 and 2 are heinous and anti social one and against to the State and hence, prayed to impose maximum punishment on them.
On hearing both sides on the point of sentence, I have gone through the entire materials placed on record. It is noticed that accused No.1 and 2 are middle aged and they are the first offenders. There are no bad antecedents against them. Further the offences alleged under Sec.86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act are heinous and antisocial and against to the State and they are punishable with severe imprisonment. Offences under Sec.86 and 87 of the Act are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to 10 years, provided, in case of first offence the term of imprisonment shall not 19 SC 416/2013 be less than five years and amount of fine shall not be less than Rs.50,000/-.
Therefore, considering all these facts, nature of offences committed by the accused No.1 and 2, age and back ground of accused and other mitigating circumstances and the quantum of sentence and fine to be imposed for the above said offences, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Accused No.1 and 2 are hereby convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period one year for the offence punishable under Sec. 86 of Karnataka Forest Act; and The accused No.1 and 2 are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Sec. 87 of Karnataka Forest Act.
The accused No.1 and 2 are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one 20 SC 416/2013 year and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months for offence under Sec.379 of Indian Penal Code and ; and The sentences passed against the offenders shall run concurrently.The period in which the accused No.1 and 2
were in judicial custody, if any, shall be given set off.
Seized M.O.1 to 4 and ten sandal wood billets be handed over to Forest Department for disposal in accordance with law under the provisions of Karnataka Forest Act after expiry of appeal period.
Supply free copy of judgment to accused No.1 and 2.
Issue conviction warrant accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation by the Judgment writer, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 11th day of January, 2018) (S.K.VANTIGODI) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.21 SC 416/2013
ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 N.Mahesha 29.4.2016 PW2 G.Manjunath /do/ PW3 Mahesh.J.R. 01.06.2016 PW4 Chidananda /do/ PW5 M.Nagaraj 29.09.2016 PW6 N.G.Sathyanarayana /do/
List of witnesses examined for the defence: Nil List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Mahazar Ex.P.2 FIR Ex.P.3 Photo of Wood Ex.P.4 Photo of wood Ex.P.5 Certificate
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defence:
Nil List of M.O. marked for the prosecution :
M.O.1 school bag
M.O.2 Hand bag
M.O.3 Big-saw
M.O.4 Small-saw
LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.