Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Rfo Koppa vs T P Ravishankar on 11 October, 2012
1 Crl.A 681/07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.681 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY R F O, KOPPA.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI: P KARUNAKAR, HCGP)
AND:
1. T P RAVISHANKAR
S/O PUTTANNA T
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
2. T PUTTANNA
S/O THIMMANNAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/O THOTADAMANE
HEGGARAKUDIGE VILLAGE
AGALAGANDI POST
KOPPA TALUK.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: GIRISH KODGI, ADV)
***
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO LEAVE THE FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.06.2006
PASSED IN CRL APPEAL NO.72/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE
2 Crl.A 681/07
COURT OF F.T.C-II, CHICKMAGALUR, ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
Section 87 OF K.F. ACT AND UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The State has challenged the judgment and order acquitting the respondents for the charge under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and Section 379 of IPC in an appeal against conviction.
2. The facts reveal that on 17.09.1999 at about 10 or 10.30 a.m. PW1 - Range Forest Officer received a credible information that accused No.2 was in possession of sandalwood billets and he was transporting the same. Therefore, he alongwith the officials went near the house of accused No.2 and at about 3.30 p.m. two persons came on a Yamaha Motor Cycle and PW1 signaled them to stop, but despite the said signal of PW1, they did not stop the vehicle. Therefore, they fired two bullets in the air. It is alleged that respondent No.1 and another accused left motor cycle near the estate and ran away in the forest. 3 Crl.A 681/07 PWs.1 and 2 seized the motor cycle and took the gunny bag containing 15 sandalwood billets weighing 25 kgs and went to the house of accused No.2. After the search of house of accused No.2, in the cattle shed, they found 41 billets of sandalwood kept in a gunny bag and they seized them under the mahazar. The sandalwood billets were examined by PW3 who certified that they were sandalwood billets. PW1 recorded the statement of witnesses and after collecting the relevant documents, chargesheet came to be filed against the respondents for the aforesaid charges.
3. During the trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and Mos.1 to 44. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel for parties and on appreciation of the material placed on record, convicted the respondents for the aforesaid charges. The respondents/accused challenged their conviction in Crl.A.No.72/2003 and learned Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and 4 Crl.A 681/07 acquitted the respondents for the said charges. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
4. I have heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State. Counsel for respondents is absent.
5. It is the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader that the case against respondents has been proved beyond doubt and the learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the respondents. He submits that the First Appellate Court committed an error in granting an acquittal by allowing the appeal.
6. As could be seen from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, though PW2 was examined, he was not available for cross-examination and therefore both the courts below have not considered the evidence of PW2 rightly for the reason that he was not 5 Crl.A 681/07 available for cross-examination by the accused. PW3 is the Officer who issued the certificate - Ex.P4 stating that the seized wooden billets are sandalwood billets. So, only the evidence of PW1 - Abdul Azeez, Range Forest Officer, has to be relied upon. It is relevant to note that he is the complainant and except his evidence there is no material on record to prove the allegation made against the respondents. As he is the complainant, is an interested person and his evidence has to be corroborated in material particulars. There is no corroboration to his evidence, as the only witness to corroborate him was PW2 and he was not available for cross-examination.
7. So far as the evidence of PW1 is concerned, there appear to be discrepancies in his evidence and though he had the information in the morning at about 10.30 a.m., he left the office at about 1.00 p.m. and reached the place of incident 6 Crl.A 681/07 at about 3.30 p.m. Though the complaint came to be registered on 17.9.1999 at about 3.30 p.m. there is inordinate delay in sending the First Information Report to the Magistrate and it is on 18.9.1999 that the Magistrate received the First Information Report at 9.30 a.m. The delay is also not explained. Though it is stated by PW1 that the gunny bag containing 15 sandalwood pieces was on the carrier of the motor cycle, there is no material to tie the same to the carrier of motorcycle and therefore the carrying of gunny bag on the motorcycle by the respondents is disbelieved. In the punchanama, seizing the sandalwood in the house of the second accused from the cattle shed, it reveals that there were 41 pieces, whereas, the certificate issued by PW3 under Ex.P4 reveals that the sandalwood pieces were
43. Further more, just by saying that no independent witnesses were ready to sign the 7 Crl.A 681/07 mahazar, no effort is made to secure the presence of independent witnesses at the time of the seizure. So, from these circumstances, rather the interested version of PW1 further raises doubt with regard to the genuineness of the case of the prosecution. When the complainant is the only person to prove his case put-forth before the Court, in the absence of any material to corroborate his evidence, it appears unsafe to award conviction on uncorroborated testimony of PW1. It is in these circumstances the First Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence and set aside the conviction. In an appeal against the acquittal, the Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with such orders. Even if a second view is possible, the one accepted by the court below cannot be disturbed. If the material placed on record is looked into, in the context of the principle stated above, I do not find any 8 Crl.A 681/07 justifiable ground to interfere with the order of acquittal.
In the result, appeal fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/- & Ap/-