Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Siddaraju S/O Ningegowda on 9 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.61)
Dated this the 9th day of June 2016
: PRESENT :
Sri B.Jayantha Kumar, B.A.,Law, LL.M.
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No. 1028/2014
Complainant :- The State of Karnataka,
By Rajarajeshwarinagara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused:- 1. Siddaraju S/o Ningegowda,
Aged about 29 years
R/at: Savanayyana Thopu
Kodamballi grama,
Channapattana Taluk
Ramanagara District
Also at: Rajarajeshwari Nagara
Bengaluru
2. Raju S/o Thimmaiah,
Aged about 35 years
R/at: Srinivasapura, Uttarahalli
2 SC 1028/2014
Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru
Native of :- Savanayyana Thopu
Kodamballi grama,
Channapattana Taluk
Ramanagara District
3. Kumar S/o Ramanna,
Aged about 27 years
R/at: Savanayyana Thopu
Kodamballi grama,
Channapattana Taluk
Ramanagara District
Date of offence 26.12.2012
Date of report of offence 26.12.2012
Name of the complainant Sri Ravi G.K. PSI, R.R.Nagara
Date of commencement of 02.12.2015
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 01.04.2016
Offences complained of Sec.86, 87 of Karnataka Forest
Act r/w Sec.379 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 found guilty.
Accused No.2 and 3 are not
found guilty.
State represented by Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri T.Satheesha & Associates,
Advocates for Accused No.1 to 3
3 SC 1028/2014
JUDGMENT
Accused No.1 to 3 are charged and prosecuted for the offences punishable U/s.86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act r/w Sec.379 of IPC.
2. The substance of the accusation levelled against the accused are as follows:
On 26.12.2012 at 2.00 p.m, when CW1 Ravi G.K. Police Sub-Inspector, Rajarajeshwarinagara police station was on duty in the police station. He received credible information that three accused persons were uprooting the sandal wood tree and cutting in to pieces on the back side of Sri.Bharathkrishnashri Apartments, Jayanna Layout, Rajarajeshwarinagara. He secured two pancha witnesses and accompanied by his staff CW4 S.M.Hullur ASI, CW5 Rajendra Prasad HC 2778, CW6 Anandaraju HC 3323, CW7 Ashoka PC 5305, CW8 Kavina PC 7290 and went to the spot and conducted raid and on seeing them, two accused persons ran away from the spot and they 4 SC 1028/2014 had caught hold one accused by name Siddaraju S/o Ningegowda, 28 years, R/at: Savanayyana Thopu, Kodamballi grama, Channapattana Taluk, Ramanagara District and on enquiry, he disclosed the names of the other two accused i.e., Raju S/o Thimmaiah and Kumar S/o Ramanna and they saw 2½ ft., saw (wood cutter) and 8 pieces of sandal wood logs and by drawing spot mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses, they seized the saw and 8 sandal wood pieces and put seal on the sandal wood pieces and came to the police station and sent the sandal wood pieces to CW11 M.Nagaraju, Range Forest Officer for verification and issuance of confirmation certificate and he gave confirmation letter regarding sandal wood logs and thereafter arrested accused No.2 and 3 and recorded voluntary statement of accused, statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation formalities, filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3. 5 SC 1028/2014
3. During the course of investigation, accused No.1 was produced before the Magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, he was released on bail as per order passed by the FTC 10, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.491/2013. Thereafter, on submission of charge sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate and learned Magistrate issued NBW against Accused No.2 and 3. Accused No.3 was produced before the Magistrate by executing NBW on 9.12.2013 and he was remanded to judicial custody. Accused No.2 surrendered before the Magistrate with anticipatory bail order granted by FTC 10, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.5576/2013 and Accused No.2 was released on bail. Accused No.3 is still in judicial custody. After complying the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate committed the case to the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for trial against accused No.1 to 3. On receipt of the entire committal record, this case was numbered as S.C.No.1028/2014 and made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law. After receipt 6 SC 1028/2014 of the records, this court secured the presence of the accused No.1 and 2 by issuing summons and accused No.3 by issuing intimation to the jail authorities. The matter was heard before charge. As the reasonable grounds existed, charges were framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable u/s 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act 1953 r/w Sec.379 of IPC. Accused No.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined all together seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P6 and Material Objects M.O.No.1 and 2 and closed its side. After conclusion of trial, this court recorded the statement of accused No.1 to 3 u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 to 3 denied all the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence and they have not let in defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Accused.
7 SC 1028/2014
6. The following points arise for my determination;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 3 uprooted sandal wood tree and cut into 8 pieces illegally without any permit behind Sri.Bharathkrishnashri Apartments, Jayanna Layout, Rajarajeshwarinagara on 26.12.2012 and thereby committed theft of sandal wood tree dishonestly, knowing fully well that the sandal wood tree belongs to Government and thereby committed offences punishable U/Sec. 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act r/w Sec.379 of IPC?
2. What order?
7. My finding on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following:
8 SC 1028/2014
REASONS
8. Point No.1: The prosecution has alleged that on 26.12.2012 at 2.00 p.m, when CW1 Ravi G.K. Police Sub- Inspector, Rajarajeshwarinagara police station was on duty in the police station, he received credible information that three accused persons were uprooting sandal wood tree and cutting in to pieces on the back side of Sri.Bharathkrishnashri Apartments, he immediately, secured two pancha witnesses and accompanied by his staff went to the spot and found three persons uprooted sandal wood tree and cut into pieces and they were able to caught hold one person among three persons and two were ran away from the spot. After drawing mahazar, they seized sandal wood logs and one saw (wood cutter) and came to the police station and registered a case against accused No.1 to 3.
9. In this case, Ex.P.1 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.2 is the photograph of sandal wood logs and saw, Ex.P.3 is the letter 9 SC 1028/2014 written by Police Inspector, Rajarajeshwarinagara police station to Range Forest Officer, Kaggalipura Range, to give confirmation letter regarding seized sandal wood logs, Ex.P.4 is the report submitted by RFO, Kaggalipura Range, Ex.P.5 is the complaint report given by CW1 Ravi G.K., Police Sub-Inspector, and Ex.P.6 is the FIR.
10. As per Ex.P.5, the police caught hold accused No.1 Siddaraju on the spot and other two persons ran away from the spot. According to the version of the prosecution, the accused No.1 disclosed the names of other two persons as Raju S/o Thimmaiah and Kumar S/o Ramanna, therefore, they registered a case against accused No.2 and 3 also and subsequently, they arrested accused No.2 and 3. CW1 Ravi G.K. is examined as PW4. In his evidence, he has deposed that he was working as PSI of Rajarajeshwari Nagara police station from 7.12.2012 to 7.12.2013. He has deposed that when he was in-charge of police station on 26.12.2012, he received credible information 10 SC 1028/2014 that three persons were cutting the sandal wood tree, immediately, he secured pancha witnesses and police officials and went to the spot in Hoysala Jeep and on reaching the spot, he sent HC 2778 to confirm the incident and thereafter they conducted raid on the accused and at that time, two persons ran away from the spot and they caught hold accused No.1 Siddaraju and then they found 2 ½ ft., length saw and 8 pieces of sandal wood logs and they drew mahazar and seized the sandal wood logs and saw and came to the police station. He has identified the sandal wood logs and they are marked as M.O.1. He has also identified the photographs of sandal wood logs and saw marked as Ex.P.2. Before the court, he shown the person wearing hat is the person they caught hold at the spot. But this court asked his name, he said his name is Kumar. Again, PW4 identified the person who is wearing T-Shirt is the person they caught hold at the spot. This Court asked his name and he told his name as Siddaraju. He has not identified the other two accused persons. He has also deposed about the FIR 11 SC 1028/2014 prepared by him. He has also identified his signature finds place in Ex.P.5 complaint and Ex.P.6 FIR. Though learned counsel for accused cross-examined this witness, nothing has been elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his evidence. But he stated that the absconded accused persons were found at a distance of 10 to 15 meters. Only suggestion put to this witness is that he did not go to the spot, he did not draw mahazar. He denied these suggestions. Therefore, CW1 who is the complainant has clearly deposed about the incident and also identified the accused No.1, but not identified the accused No.2 and 3.
11. According to the prosecution, they went to the spot along with two independent pancha witnesses. One is Krishna and another one is Ningegowda. Krishna is examined as PW1. He has identified his signature in Ex.P.1 mahazar. He has deposed that about three years back at about 1.30 to 2.00 p.m, when he was in auto stand, Rajarajeshwarinagara police called 12 SC 1028/2014 him to the police station and informed about cutting of sandal wood tree near Jayanna Layout, Sri.Bharathkrishnashri Apartments and asked him to accompany them. He has further stated that he, Ningegowda and 6-7 police officials went near Bharathkrishnashri Apartments, Jayanna Layout, in Hoysala Jeep and reached the spot at 2.30 p.m. He has further deposed that they stopped the Jeep at a distance and saw three persons. He has further stated that two persons were sawing the sandal wood logs and one person was keeping the logs by the side. He has further deposed that they caught hold one accused and other two persons ran away from the spot. He has further deposed that the person who apprehended by the police disclosed his name as Siddaraju. He has also deposed that Accused was holding saw in his hand and there were 5-6 sandal wood logs. He has further deposed that the police told him that they were sandal wood logs. He has further deposed that the police have seized sandal wood logs and saw. He has identified the sandal wood logs before the court. He also 13 SC 1028/2014 identified the photograph of sandal wood logs and saw marked as Ex.P.2. He has identified accused No.1 before the court as Siddaraju. But he did not identify the other two accused persons. During the course of cross-examination, he has stated that his auto stand is situated 100 ft., away from Rajarajeshwarinagara police station. He has denied the suggestion that he signed the mahazar in Rajarajeshwarinagara police station. Though learned counsel for accused cross- examined this witness, nothing has been elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his evidence. His evidence is unshaky, convincing and corroborative with the evidence of CW1-PW4.
12. CW4 S.M.Hullur, ASI, Rajarajeshwarinagara police station is examined as PW2. In his evidence, he has deposed about the raid conducted by him with other police officials and PSI. He has also deposed that there were three persons at the spot. He has also deposed that they caught hold accused Siddaraju and he has also identified accused No.1 Siddaraju 14 SC 1028/2014 before the court. But he has stated that he cannot identify the other two accused. He has stated that the accused No.1 disclosed the names of other two persons as Kumara and Raju. During the course of cross-examination also, learned counsel for accused not elicited any answer from the mouth of PW2 contrary to the prosecution version.
13. CW11 Nagaraju.M. Retired RFO, is examined as PW3. In his evidence, he has deposed that on 2.5.2013, the Police Constables Muniraju and Nagaraj of Rajarajeshwarinagara police station came to him with sandal wood logs and he verified the sandal wood logs and confirmed that they are sandal wood logs and gave confirmation letter as per Ex.P.4. During the course of cross-examination, no suggestion was put to PW1 that he has not verified the seized sandal wood logs. He has also deposed that he had obtained training for verification of sandal wood.
15 SC 1028/2014
14. CW12 Ravi K. then Police Inspector of Rajarajeshwarinagara police station is examined as PW5. He has deposed about the investigation and about obtaining of certificate from RFO, recording of statement of police officials and filing of charge sheet.
15. CW8 Kavina, PC, examined as PW6. He has also deposed about the raid conducted and about the arrest of accused No.1 at the spot and about seizure of sandal wood logs. Though the learned counsel for accused cross-examined this witness, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to disbelieve his evidence.
16. CW9 K.Muniraju, then PC in Rajarajeshwarinagara police station is examined as PW7. In his evidence, he has deposed that he and another P.C. Nagaraj went to Kaggalipura RFO with sandal wood logs seized in the above case and RFO of Kaggalipura Range, has verified the same and gave certificate.
16 SC 1028/2014
17. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that the accused have not committed any offence and evidence of police officials cannot be believed and alleged place of incident is public place and public are moving there, therefore, question of committing offence does not arise and prayed for acquittal of accused. This argument cannot be accepted. Therefore, on perusal of oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, the prosecution is able to prove that the accused No.1 had uprooted the sandal wood tree situated near Sri.Bharathkrishnashri Apartment, Jayanna Layout, Rajarajeshwari Nagara on 26.12.2012 and cut into 8 pieces with the help of saw with an intention to transport the same and the police officials along with independent pancha witnesses caught hold accused No.1 and seized sandal wood logs and saw by drawing mahzar. The evidence of police witnesses corroborated with the evidence of independent pancha witness PW1 Krishna and evidence of prosecution witnesses are convincing and satisfactory. Therefore, the 17 SC 1028/2014 prosecution has proved the guilt of accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. But since the prosecution witnesses did not identify the accused No.2 and 3, it is just and proper to acquit them for the alleged offences. The prosecution has proved that the accused No.1 Siddaraju has committed offences punishable U/Sec. 86 of Karnataka Forest Act r/w Sec.379 of IPC. Since the accused has not transported the sandal wood logs, Section 87 of Karnataka Forest Act does not attract to the case in hand. Sec.84 of the Karnataka Forest Act says that wherein any proceedings taken under this act or in consequence of anything contained under this act or any law for the time being in force, the question arises as to whether any sandal wood is the property of the State Government, it shall until contrary is proved be presumed to be property of State Government in case of any prosecution, the burden of proving contrary shall lie with accused. So the accused No.1 has not proved that the sandal wood tree not belongs to State Government and it belongs to him. The Learned Public Prosecutor gave up CW3, 5, 18 SC 1028/2014 6, 7 and 10. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
18. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Accused No.1 is found guilty and convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C., of the offences punishable under Section 86 of Karnataka Forest Act r/w Sec. 379 of I.P.C.
Accused No.1 is acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 87 of Karnataka Forest Act.
Accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty and acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., they are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act r/w Sec.379 of IPC.
19 SC 1028/2014
Accused No.3 is set at liberty. However, Accused No.2 and 3 are directed to execute personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each with a surety for like sum to the satisfaction of this court as required U/s.437(A) of Cr.P.C., to appear before the higher court as and when said court issued notices in respect of any appeal filed against this judgment and it shall be in force for a period of six months.
(Dictated to Judgment writer, transcribed by him, revised and corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 9th day of June 2016) (B.Jayantha Kumar) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and Accused No.1 and learned counsel for Accused No.1.
Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the accused No.1 found guilty of offence punishable under Section 86 of KF Act read with Section 379 of IPC and hence maximum sentence 20 SC 1028/2014 may be imposed against the Accused No.1. Learned Counsel for accused has argued that a leniency may be shown while imposing sentence. Accused No.1 has submitted that he is unmarried and he is the resident of Channapatana Taluk and he is having aged parents and he has not committed any offence and he is doing coolie work and hence, he may be pardoned.
In this case, this Court found the Accused No.1 guilty of offence punishable Under Section 86 of KF Act read with Section 379 of IPC as he has committed theft of sandal wood tree and Accused No.1 is aged 29 years and question of extending the benefit of Probation of Offender's Act does not arise. The punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 86 of KF Act in the case of first offence, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than five years and amount of fine shall not be less than Rs.50,000/- and in the case of second or subsequent offence, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than seven years and the amount of fine shall not 21 SC 1028/2014 be less than Rs.75,000/-. In this case, the prosecution has not produced material to show that this is the second or subsequent offence committed by the Accused No.1. Hence, it is just and proper to impose simple imprisonment for a period of five years and impose fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, he shall under go further imprisonment for a period of three months. It is just and proper to pass an order of set off the period of detention undergone by the accused during the period of investigation, enquiry and trial from 27-12-2012 to 20-02-2013 and from 28-02-2014 to 09-02-2015 and hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Accused No.1 is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period five years and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 86 of Karnataka Forest Act read with Section 379 of IPC and in default to pay fine, he shall further under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 22 SC 1028/2014
Period of detention undergone by the Accused No.1 during the investigation, enquiry and trial from 27-12-2012 to 20-02-2013 and from 28-02-2014 to 09-02-2015 is given set off against the sentence of imprisonment.
Office is directed to return M.O.1 sandal wood logs to Forest Department for disposal in accordance with law and M.O.2 is ordered to be confiscated to the State after appeal period is over.
Supply free copy of judgment to Accused No.1.
(B.Jayantha Kumar) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru : ANNEXURES :
List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Krishna
PW2 S.M.Hullur, ASI
PW3 Nagaraju.M.
23 SC 1028/2014
PW4 Ravi.G.K. PSI
PW5 K.Ravi, Police Inspector
PW6 Kavina
PW7 K.Muniraja
List of witnesses examined for the defence:
Nil List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Mahazar Ex.P.2 Photo of sandal wood logs Ex.P.3 Letter sent by PI Ex.P.4 Certificate of RFO Ex.P.5 Statement of G.K.Ravi Ex.P.6 FIR
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defence:
Nil List of M.O. marked for the prosecution :
M.O.1 08 logs of sandal wood
M.O.2 Saw
LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
24 SC 1028/2014