1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
CHITTOOR.
Present: Smt. A. Naga Sailaja, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, FAC. Additional Assistant Sessions Judge. Chittoor.
Monday, the 13th day of August, 2018.
S.C. No. 185 of 2016
Between:
The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Irala Police Station, Irala. … Complainant And:
1.Rambe. Narasimhulu, 22 years, S/o R. Srinivasulu, Gundlapalli
ST Colony, Irala Mandal.
2.Erukula Narayappa Ravi, age 24 years, S/o E. Narayanappa
Jownipalli Village and Post, V. Kota Mandal.
3.G.N. Manjunadh, age 23 years, S/o C. Narayanaswamy,
Gudnahalli Village, Saidgul, Sivaara Panchayat, Doddakattur post, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka State.
4.N. Vinayaka, age 32 years, S/o N. Reddeppa, Krishnapuram
Village, Mallakunta Post, Thavanampalli Mandal.
.... A1 to A4.
This case coming on this day i.e. 08-08-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt B. Leelavathi, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri E. Sugunasekhar Reddy,
Advocate for A1 to A4 and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G E M E N T
The Sub Inspector of Police, Irala PS filed charge sheet against
A-1 to A4 in Cr.No.10 of 2015 of Irala PS for the offences U/Secs 307, 353 379, 411, 120 (b) r/w 109 IPC Sec.29(2)(b) r/w 29 (4)(a) (ii) of A.P.
Forest Act 1967, Rule-3 of AP Sandal Wood and Red Sander Wood 2
Transit Rules 2 of A.P. Forest Act 1967, Sec.29 r/w 51 of Wild Life Act 1972, Sec.3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sec. 25 of Arms Act against A1 to A3 and for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B) r/w 109 IPC, 379, Sec.29 r/w 51 of
Wild Life Act 1972, Section 55 (2) and 58 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against A4.
2. The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that on 15-02-2015 at about 11-30 AM, the SI of Police, Irala PS Irala i.e.,
P.W.6 received credible information about the illegal transportation of red sanders in an unknown car, immediately she left Police Station along with her Staff P.W.5 and Police Constables 2049, 4390, 3278 3739, 3811 and panchayatdars P.Ws 1 and 2 conducted vehicle checking at Akkammacheruvu Palli on Chittoor – Piler road. While checking the vehicles, PW6 noticed that one cement coloured car bearing No.KA-02-N-4 is coming from Piler side in a high speed, on suspicion she gave a hand signal to stop the car, but the car driver on seeing the police party tried to escape from there, but the P.W.6 with the active assistance of staff caught the car and found three persons i.e., A1 to A3 in the car and all of a sudden, A1 to A3 get down from the car and revolted on the police persons and tried to escape from the spot by killing them on the point of axe and threatened with dire consequences, but the police persons tactfully escaped unhurt and caught the accused A1 to A3 and then P.W.6 searched the Car and found 3 Red Sander Wood Logs in the Car. On that the accused were interrogated about the transportation of the Red Sander Wood Logs in the car, for which they voluntarily confessed that they along with their 3 associates A4 to A7 formed into a ground and they were cut of the red sandal wood trees at Tirupati Tirumala Seshachalam forest by spoiling the lives of the forest animals, and making them into logs without notice of others committed theft and also damaged the public property, in part of their smuggling on 14-02-2015 evening they went to
Bhakarapet forest area along with A2 E.N. Ravi and A-3 B.N.
Manjunath and loaded the said three red sander logs in the Car KA-02-
N-4 and then on 15-02-2015 early hours they started in the said Car driving by Manjunath and A1 and A2 are sat in the car to go to
Bangalore and while proceeding towards Palamaner they were caught by the police along with Red sander Wood logs and Car. Then P.W.6 arrested A1 to A3 and seized 3 Red sander wood logs and one car KA- 02-N-4 from the possession of A1 to A3 in the presence of P.Ws 1 and 2 under a cover of Mahazarnama on 15-02-2015 at 12-30 PM and caught the accused and seized the property at Irala at 3-00 PM and registered the case in Cr.No.10/2015 for the offence under Sections 307, 353, 120-B, 109, 379, 411, IPC Sec.29 and 32 of A.P. Forest Act 1967,
Rule-3 of AP Sandal Wood and Red Sandal Wood Transit Rules, Sec.29 of Wild Life Act 1972, Sec.55 (2), 58 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002,
Section 24 (a), 24 (b) and 25 (1) AAA of Arms Act, 1959 of Irala Police
Station and submitted First Information Reports to all the officers concerned and took up investigation and sent the accused for remand.
During the course of investigation, P.W.6 on 3-3-2015 arrested
A4 arrested at P.Vaddipalle bus stop Irala Mandal and recorded his confession statement in the presence of P.Ws 3 and 4 under a cover of
Mahazar and sent him for remand. During the course of investigation all the possible efforts have been made to apprehend the accused A5 to 4
A7 and all the efforts taken by them proved futile. No positive clues are forth coming to apprehend the accused A5 to A7. Thus the accused A1 to A3 have committed the offence punishable under sections 307, 353 379, 411, 120 (b) r/w 109 IPC Sec.29(2)(b) r/w 29 (4)(a) (ii) of A.P.
Forest Act 1967, Rule-3 of AP Sandal Wood and Red Sandal Wood
Transit Rules 2 of A.P. Forest Act 1967, Sec.29 r/w 51 of Wild Life Act 1972, Sec.3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sec. 25 of Arms Act and A4 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B) r/w 109 IPC, 379, Sec.29 r/w 51 of
Wild Life Act 1972, Section 55 (2) and 58 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Hence the charge.
3. After filing of charge sheet before the learned IV Additional
Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Chittoor, it was taken on file for the
offences under Sections 32, 29 of AP Forest Act, Rule 3 of A.P. Sandal wood Transit Rules and Section 29 of Wild Life Protection Act and
Section 55 (2) of and 58 of Bio Diversity Act, Section 3 and 5 of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 24 (A) and (B) and Section 25 (1-AAA) of Arms Act and Sections 307, 353, 379, 411, 120-B and 109 IPC against A-1 to A4 and registered as
PRC.No. 35 of 2015.
4. After appearance of A1 to A4 before the learned IV Additional
Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Chittoor, copies of documents
submitted by the police were furnished to them and case was committed to Hon’ble Sessions Court u/s 209 Cr.P.C and the said case was registered as SC.No.185/2016 and made over to this court for trial according to law.
5
5. After appearance of A1 to A4 before this court they were asked whether they have got means to engage counsel and they informed the court that they got means to engage counsel. After hearing the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for A1 to A4 and on
perusing the material available on record, charges U/Secs 307, 353 379, 411, 120 (b) r/w 109 IPC Sec.29(2)(b) r/w 29 (4)(a) (ii) of A.P.
Forest Act 1967, Rule-3 of AP Sandal Wood and Red Sandal Wood
Transit Rules 2 of A.P. Forest Act 1967, Sec.29 r/w 51 of Wild Life Act 1972, Sec.3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sec. 25 of Arms Act against A1 to A3 and for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B) r/w 109 IPC, 379, Sec.29 r/w 51 of
Wild Life Act 1972, Section 55 (2) and 58 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against A4 were framed, read over and explained to them in
Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then, the matter was posted for trial.
6. In order to prove the guilt of A1 to A4, prosecution examined
Nine witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Then the matter is posted for arguments.
8. Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the offences punishable U/Secs 307, 353 379, 411, 120 (b) r/w 109 IPC
Sec.29(2)(b) r/w 29 (4)(a) (ii) of A.P. Forest Act 1967, Rule-3 of AP
Sandal Wood and Red Sandal Wood Transit Rules 2 of A.P. Forest Act 6 1967, Sec.29 r/w 51 of Wild Life Act 1972, Sec.3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sec. 25 of Arms Act and against a4 for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B) r/w 109
IPC, 379, Sec.29 r/w 51 of Wild Life Act 1972, Section 55 (2) and 58 of
Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against A4 beyond all reasonable doubt?
9. Heard the arguments of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.
POINT
10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15-02-2015 at about 11-30 AM, the SI of Police, Irala i.e., P.W.6 and his staff laid a road watch at Akkammacheruvu Palli on Chittoor – Piler road and checking the vehicles and noticed that one cement coloured car bearing No.KA- 02-N-4 is coming from Piler side in a high speed, on suspicion she gave a hand signal to stop the car, but the car driver on seeing the police party tried to escape from there, but the police chased and caught the accused and on thorough search of the vehicle, P.W.6 found 3 Red
Sander Wood Logs in the Car transporting illegally without having any transit or permit and on questioning the accused they confessed about transportation of the Red Sander Logs Tirupati Tirumala Seshachalam forest to Bhakarapet and basing on their confession, P.W.6 seized the property under the cover of Mahazarnama in the presence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and they were sent to remand and thereafter the p.W.6 arrested the A4 on 3-3-2015 in the presence of P.Ws 3 and 4 and sent him for remand and could not trace out the accused Nos 5 to 7. Therefore, the accused A1 to A3 are liable for punishment for the offences punishable U/Secs 307, 353 379, 411, 120 (b) r/w 109 IPC
Sec.29(2)(b) r/w 29 (4)(a) (ii) of A.P. Forest Act 1967, Rule-3 of AP 7
Sandal Wood and Red Sandal Wood Transit Rules 2 of A.P. Forest Act 1967, Sec.29 r/w 51 of Wild Life Act 1972, Sec.3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sec. 25 of Arms Act and
A4 is liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B) r/w 109 IPC, 379, Sec.29 r/w 51 of Wild Life Act 1972, Section 55 (2) and 58 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 3 and 5 of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
11. On the other hand the accused denied the commission of alleged offence by them and stated that they were falsely implicated by the police and they have not committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution.
12. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P-7. L.Ws 1 to 6 were examined as P.ws 1 to 6 respectively and P.W.7 and P.W.8 are the forest officials examined by the prosecution by summoning them and
P.W.9 is the person who filed the charge sheet into the Court.
13. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on 15-02-2015 at 11-30 or 11-45 AM, the Sub Inspector of Police, Irala came to Gundlapalli panchayat office and called him and his Panchayat Secretary to be present at Akkamacheruvu of Gundlapalli and the P.W.6 checking the vehicles and at that time one car was coming and when the police tried to stop the car, the car proceeding without stopping, then the police chased the car and checked the vehicle and found 3 Red sander wood logs consisting of 30 kgs, 40 kgs and 75 kgs and A1 to A3 were present in the vehicle and A3 is the driver of the vehicle and the police seized
Rs.300/- from A3 and the A1 threatneded the police with axe, but the 8 police apprehended A1 and seized the axe and the mahazar was prepared by P.W.6 and he signed on it.
14. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that he is working as Junior
Assistant, Z.P. High School at present and previously he worked as
Panchayat Secretary on deputation in Gundlapalli village. On 15-02-2015 at about 11-30 or 11-40 AM, the Sub Inspector of Police asked him to present at Akkamcheruvu in Gundlapalli village, then himself and P.W.1 went there along with police and the P.W.6 checked vehicles passing on the high way and at that time one car coming from
Piler to Chittoor and the police tried to stop the vehicle, but in vain, then police chased and got it and three persons are there in the vehicle and when the police tried to apprehend A1 to A3, A1 threatened the police with the axe, then the police caught hold of A1 and seized the axe and examined A1 to A3 separately, then they stated that they are coming from Bhakarapet to Chittoor, they brought Red sander wood logs from Seshachalam forest and hidden at Bhakarapet from there they are bringing the logs to Palamaner to hand over the same to their friends. Then P.W.6 checked the car and found 3 Red sander logs in the boot of the car and got weighed the logs and also seized Rs.300/- from A3 and prepared mahazar and he signed on it.
15. P.W.3 the then VRO of Morampalli Village, Irala and it is his evidence that on 3-3-2015 at about 12-30 or 1-00 Noon while he was present in his office, the Sub Inspector of Police, Irala came and asked him and P.W.4 to come to Bus shelter, Oddipalli to act as mediator and they accompanied her and at the Bus shelter one person on seeing them leaving the premises by running, then the Sub Inspector of Police
P.W.6 caught hold and checked him and found Rs.100/- in his 9 possession and the P.W.6 prepared mahazar, but he do not know the contents of the mahazar and he can identify the said person.
16. The P.W.4 who is the VRO who worked as VRO of Irala deposed that on 3-3-2015 at about 1-00 PM while he was present in
Tahsildar office at Irala, P.W.6 came to their office and later their MRO informed him to contact PW.6, then he and P.W.3 went to Oddipalli along with P.W.6 and on seeking them one person tried to escape, then
P.W.6 caught hold of him and enquired him.
17. The P.W.5 who is the Head Constable, Irala police station deposed that on 15-02-2015 himself along with other staff and P.W.6 proceeded to Akkammacheruvu for checking vehicles at 11-30 AM and on the way they took panchayatdars and at about 12-15 PM they found one vehicle coming from Piler towards Chittoor side and then they stopped the vehicle and they are 3 persons in the said vehicle and out of them A1 hold an axe and threatened them then they caught hold him and seized the axe and they checked the car KA-02-N-4 and they found 3 red sander logs in the vehicle and seized the same. Then, P.W.6 interrogated A1 to A3 separately and they stated that they are suffering with financial crises and to overcome the same, they started cutting red sander trees in Seshachalam Forest and bring the same for sale for
Palamaner. The vehicle and red sander logs were seized under the cover of mahazarnama and he signed in the mahazar.
18. P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer who deposed about her investigation, seizure and visit to scene of offence and preparing rough sketch and remanding the accused to judicial custody. The portion of arrest and seizure mahazar dated 15-02-2015 is marked as Ex.P-1, 10
Original FIR is marked as Ex.P2, Receipt issued by the Forest Beat
Officer as Ex.P-3 and Rough sketch is Ex.P-4 marked through her.
19. P.W.7 is the Retired Forest Range Officer deposed that on 10- 03-2015 the Irala Police constable produced before him one vehicle bearing No.KA-02-N-4 Maruthy Car and 3 red sander wood logs weighing 150 kgs and he took possession of the same and produced
before the Assistant Coservator of Forest, Palamaner and he issued
proceedings to him on 25-08-2015 and on 2-92015 and as per the said proceedings the said property was given to his custody. He got marked the proceedings dated 25-08-2015 issued by Assistant Conservator of
Forest, Palamaner as Ex.P-5, Proceedings dated 2-9-2015 issued by
Assistant Conservator of Forest, Palaamaner is Ex.P-6.
20. The Forest Beat Officer is examined as P.W.8 and she deposed that on 10-03-2015 while he was on duty at Irala, the Irala Police constable came to their office and produced one car bearing No.KA-02-
N-4 and 3 Red sander wood logs and she received the same and handed over the said property to the office and she issued Form-C to the police in token of the receipt of the property. The attested copy of Form-C
dated 10.03.2015 is marked as Ex.P-7 through her.
21. The Sub Inspector of Police, Irala deposed as P.W.9 and stated that in this case the entire investigation was done by P.W.6 and after verifying the investigation, he found it on correct lines and filed the charge sheet into the Court.
22. After completion of evidence, the learned A.P.P argued that
P.W.6 arrested A1 to A3 in the presence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and A4 in the presence of P.Ws 3 and 4 and seized the property under the cover of 11
Mahazarnama and the witnesses identified the accused before the Court and the accused confessed the guilt before the P.W.6 that they are transporting the Red sander wood without permit and without licence and they have committed the offence in view of the financial crises and thereby the prosecution is able to prove the guilt against the accused and therefore the accused are liable for punishment for the said offences.
23. On the other hand the counsel for the accused argued that the
P.W.6 is not competent to seize the property and police have not followed the procedure of seizure as contemplated under Section 44 of the Forest Act and further the description of the axe was not mentioned in the charge sheet and the mahazarnamas were prepared at the panchayat office and the p.W.5 was present in the Court at the time of giving evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and there are no specific overt acts as to who threatened the police with axe and in whose possession the axe was seized and the said property was not produced before the Court and as per the case of the prosecution A1 to A4 were transporting the
Red Sander Wood logs on the instructions of A5 to A7, but they were not arrested sofar and the Forest Beat Officer is not competent to take over the property, but the Divisional Forest Officer is competent and the P.Ws 7 and 8 were not cited as witnesses initially by the prosecution and they were summoned and examined subsequently by the prosecution to cover up the lacunas and no steps were taken to hand over the vehicle to the owner and no description with regard to the grade of the property seized was mentioned and the entire investigation was not done properly and so, the accused are entitled for acquittal.
12
24. It is the rule of evidence that the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused for the above offences beyond reasonable doubt.
25. At the first instance, the prosecution has to prove that the accused 1 to 3 stolen the Red Sander Wood Logs and removed and lifted the Red Sander Wood Logs with dishonest intention and thereby committed the theft of said property and therefore they are liable for punishment for the charge under Section 379 IPC. The burden heavily lies on the prosecution to prove that the accused trespassed into the
Reserve Forest and they lifted the logs from there and transporting them illegally for wrongful gain. Except the bare allegations in the charge sheet, it is not made out from the record that the accused 1 to 3 entered into the Reserve Forest and they cut and removed the logs. No witnesses on behalf of the Forest Department who is the owner and custodian of the Forest produce has come forward to depose that the same was stolen and was recovered from the possession of the accused.
P.W.6 admits that she did not receive any complaint from the forest officials about the theft of Red Sander wood logs. So, in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the ingredients of theft have been proved.
26. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the confessional statements given by A1 to A3. Admittedly both the mahazars were prepared in the presence of P.Ws 1 to 3 on the dictation of P.W.6 and
P.W.2 categorically deposed that he has not read over the contents of the Mahazar and he cannot state the contents of the mahazar. The said mahazars were not marked by the prosecution. Admittedly the P.W.6 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Irala Police Station but not the Forest 13
Officials. So, the confession before the police is inadmissible as per
Section 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the benefit must always extend to the accused and not to the prosecution.
27. Coming to the alleged transportation of Red Sander Wood Logs through the Car, as per the version of the prosecution, the P.W.6 found 3 Red Sander Wood Logs in the boot of the car from the custody of accused and she weighed the logs and the logs are 30 kgs, 40 kgs and 75 kgs respectively. As per the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 6, it is clear that the total weight of the logs is 150 Kgs but the total amounts to 145 Kgs and the vehicle through which the logs are being transproted is Maruthi
Car bearing No.KA-02-N-4. Coming to the cross examination, the P.W.1 categorically stated that he cannot state the measurements of the boot of the car and he cannot state the measurements of the logs and the
P.W.6 who is the crucial witness in this case categorically deposed during her cross examination that the Car seized is not a seat less car and there is no possibility of placing the Red Sander logs consisting of 155 cm in the Car boot. Hence, as per the admission given by the prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer, it is clear that there is no possibility of placing the logs weighing 155 cms in the Car boot wherein the accused 1 to 3 are going.
28. Coming to the seizure of property as per the contention of the accused 1 to 3, the Investigating Officer has not followed the procedure of seizure as contemplated under Section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act.
29. Section 44 of the Forest Act provides the procedure search and seizure of the property. As per the said procedure the person who seized the property has to place a mark on the property indicating the 14 same was seized and she produced the same before the Forest Officer.
As per the Act, the Divisional Forest Officer, is the authorized officer and admittedly there is no marking on the property as contemplated under Section 44 of the Act, the same was not produced before the
Forest Officer as per the Act.
30. The P.W.1 deposed that the police did not fix any identification slips to logs, Car and logs. P.w.6 categorically deposed that she did not affix identification slips to the property seized and the said property was handed over to Forest Department through constable Kesavulu and she did not examine the said Kesavulu. Hence, it is clear from the evidence on record that no identification marks were given to the property alleged to be seized from the custody of A1 to A3 and it was not handed over to the forest officer who is authorized to receive as per the Act. More over it is not established from the record that the property alleged to be seized from the custody of the accused is the Red Sander Wood property and no where the description of the property was mentioned and as per the evidence of P.W.6 she did not get verify the logs seized to ascertain whether the logs are Sander Wood logs or not and she did not take photographs in respect of the seized property. Therefore it is evident that the investigating officer had not followed the procedure for search and seizure of property as contemplated under Section 44 of the A.P
Forest Act.
31. Coming to the offence under Section 353 of IPC, as per the version of prosecution, the A1 threatened the police with an axe. It is clear that there is no description of the axe which was alleged to be seized from the custody of A1. The P.Ws 1 and 2 though deposed in their chief examination that A1 threatened police with an axe and the 15 police seized the axe from the custody of A1. Coming to the evidence of
P.W.6, she categorically deposed that she did not mention specifically in mahazar who was in possession of axe and on whom the accused tried to attack. P.W.5 also admits in his cross examination that in mahazar it was not mentioned specifically that the axe was seized from
A1. As per the contents of the charge sheet all the accused tried to threatened the police officials with axe and there are no specific over acts as to who attacked the police with axe and the description of the axe was not mentioned and the same was not produced before the
Court. So, the prosecution failed to connect the accused 1 to 3 to prove the offence punishable under Sction353 IPC.
32. Coming to the handover of the property, the prosecution has to prove that the property seized shall produce before the Forest Officer.
In the present case the entire investigation prior to seizure and arresting the accused was done by P.W.6 who is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Irala but not by the forest officials. Then, the property which was alleged to be seized from the accused shall be produced before the forest officials.
33. As per the evidence of P.W.6 she handed over the seized logs to the forest officials through Police Constable Kesavulu. But as per the
Act, the said property has to be given to the forest officer authorized under the Act i.e., Divisional Forest Range Officer, but it is the evidence of P.W.8 that on 10-08-2015 the police constable came and handed over the property to her, whereas the evidence of P.W.7 is that on 10.03.2015, Irala constable produced before him 3 Red sander wood logs, Maruthi Car and he took the possession and placed before the
Assistant conservative officer, Palamaner and he issued proceedings 16 under Exs.P-5 and P-6. As per his version P.W.8 received the property but he did not produce the letter before the court wherein he ordered the P.W.8 to receive the property. So, there is no clarity with regard to handing over of property by the police to the police officials. Further as per the case of the prosecution, the Investigating Officer seized the property on 15-02-2015 and it is evident from the evidence of P.ws 7 and 8 as well as Ex.P-7 that the property was produced before the
Forest Officials on 10-03-2015. Admittedly, there is a gap of about 23 days and the prosecution failed to explain the delay in handing over the property to the forest officials by the police. There is no explanation from the prosecution with regard to the delay caused in producing the property before the forest officials and they failed to explain in whose custody the property is during the said period. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish that the alleged property was produced before the forest officer who is authorized under the said Act.
34. Further, when the defacto complaint happened to be the investigating officer then it would be perhaps be difficult to uphold the position that the investigation has done impartially as per the ratio laid down in State of Karnataka – Vs- Seshadri Shetty and others in
Crl.L.J. 377. In the present case, the investigation officer and the person who detected the case and who got prepared Mahazarnama are one and the same. Therefore, the facts and decision of the said case squarely applicable to the present case. So, it can be safely concluded that investigation has not done properly
35. Coming to the confiscation orders, as per the contents of
Exs.P-5 and P-6 and as per the contents of Ex.P-6 only the car bearing
No.AKA-02-N-4 is ordered to confiscate to State by the Assistant 17
Conservative Officer, Palamaner on 25-08-2015 , but there is no mention about the confiscation of the alleged 03 Red Sander Wood Logs alleged to be seized from the custody of the accused 1 to 3. More-over the owner of the vehicle is not traced and further the accused 4 to 7 are not arrested so far. So, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is coiled with several infirmities and inconsistencies on all material aspects.
36. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the timber was fallen and removed from the Government Forest and that the timber is in possession of the accused corresponding to that logs illegally removed from the government forest. Failure of the accused to explain satisfactory does not release the prosecution from the burden to prove their case. Hence, it is clear that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under section 307, 353 379, 411, 120 (b) r/w 109
IPC Sec.29(2)(b) r/w 29 (4)(a) (ii) of A.P. Forest Act 1967, Rule-3 of AP
Sandal Wood and Red Sandal Wood Transit Rules 2 of A.P. Forest Act 1967, Sec.29 r/w 51 of Wild Life Act 1972, Sec.3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sec. 25 of Arms Act against
A1 to A3 and for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B) r/w 109 IPC, 379, Sec.29 r/w 51 of Wild Life Act 1972, Section 55 (2) and 58 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 3 and 5 of Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against A4. So, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.
37. In the result, accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences charged against them under Sections 307, 353 379, 411, 120
(b) r/w 109 IPC Sec.29(2)(b) r/w 29 (4)(a) (ii) of A.P. Forest Act 1967,
Rule-3 of AP Sandal Wood and Red Sandal Wood Transit Rules 2 of A.P.
18
Forest Act 1967, Sec.29 r/w 51 of Wild Life Act 1972, Sec.3 and 5 of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sec. 25 of Arms
Act and A4 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under
Sections 120 (B) r/w 109 IPC, 379, Sec.29 r/w 51 of Wild Life Act 1972, Section 55 (2) and 58 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and thereby A1 to A4 are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A4 shall be remained in force for a period of six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., The amount of Rs.300/- belongs to A3 and the amount of Rs.100/- belongs to A4 were already given interim custody to them under APR by the IV
AJFCM Court, Chittoor and the same is holds good after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property, if any, shall be confiscated to the
State after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after his transcription,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of August, 2018.
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, FAC. Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor.
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined: For Prosecution:- For Defence
PW1: R Surendra. None
PW2: B. Deverajaulu
PW3: T. Muniraja.
PW4: N. Munirathnam.
PW5: M. Murugesan.
PW6: K.S. Vasanthi.
PW7: K. Narayanaswamy
PW8: P. Subbalakshmi
PW9: K. Sivasankar.
19
Documents marked Prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 :- Portion of Arrest and Seizure Mahazar dated 15-02-2015
Ex.P.2 :- First Information Report
Ex.P-3 :- Receipt issued by Forest Beat Officer.
Ex.P-4 :- Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
Ex.P-5 :- Proceeding dated 25-08-2015 issued by Asst. Conservator of
Forest, Palamaner.
Ex.P-6 :- Proceedings dated -02-09-2015 issued by Asst. Conservator of
Forest, Palamaner.
Ex.P-7 :- Attested copy of C form dated 10-03-2015 issued by the Beat
Officer.
Defence:- Nil.
//Material objects//
NIL
Secretary, DLSA, Chittoor,
FAC. A.A.J.CTR.
FAIR JUDGMENT
SC.NO.185 OF 2016
DT.13-08-2018.
20
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE CHITTOOR.
S.C. No. 185 of 2016
PRC.No.35 of 2015 IV A J.M.F.C. Chittoor, Chittoor District)
Date of offence : 15-02-2015 Date of complaint : 15-02-2015 Date of taken on file : 12-07-2016 Date of apprehension of accused : 15-02-2015 (A-1 to A-3) : 03-03-2015 (A-4) Date of commencement of trial : 22-11-2017 Date of close of trial : 19-06-2018 Date of sentence or order : 13-08-2018
Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Irala PS Crime No.10/2016 of Irala PS
Name of the accused Father/ Age Husband Name
Village and Mandal Religion Calling
1.Rambe. Narasimhulu, 22 years, S/o R. Srinivasulu, Gundlapalli ST Colony, Irala Mandal.
2.Erukula Narayappa Ravi, age 24 years, S/o E. Narayanappa Jownipalli Village and Post, V. Kota Mandal.
3.G.N. Manjunadh, age 23 years, S/o C. Narayanaswamy, Gudnahalli Village, Saidgul, Sivaara Panchayat, Doddakattur post, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka State.
4.N. Vinayaka, age 32 years, S/o N. Reddeppa, Krishnapuram Village, Mallakunta Post, Thavanampalli Mandal. All are Hindus and doing coolie work.
Offences charged:- under Sections 32, 29 of AP Forest Act, Rule 3 of A.P. Sandal wood Transit Rules and Section 29 of Wild Life Protection Act and Section 55 (2) of and 58 of Bio Diversity Act, Section 3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 24 (A) and (B) and Section 25 (1-AAA) of Arms Act and Sections 307, 353, 379, 411, 120-B and 109 IPC against A-1 to A4.
Plea of the accused : A1 to A4 pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Court : A1 to A4 found not guilty.
Sentence of Order: In the result, accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences charged against them under Sections 307, 353 379, 411, 120
(b) r/w 109 IPC Sec.29(2)(b) r/w 29 (4)(a) (ii) of A.P. Forest Act 1967, Rule-3 of AP Sandal Wood and Red Sandal Wood Transit Rules 2 of A.P. Forest Act 1967, Sec.29 r/w 51 of Wild Life Act 1972, Sec.3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sec. 25 of Arms Act and A4 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B) r/w 109 IPC, 379, Sec.29 r/w 51 of Wild Life Act 1972, Section 55 (2) and 58 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 3 21 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and thereby A1 to A4 are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A4 shall be remained in force for a period of six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., The amount of Rs.300/- belongs to A3 and the amount of Rs.100/- belongs to A4 were already given interim custody to them under APR by the IV AJFCM Court, Chittoor and the same is holds good after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property, if any, shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.
ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHITTOOR.