1
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
SRIKALAHASTHI.
Present: Smt. K. Aruna,
Assistant sessions Judge,
Srikalahasthi.
Monday, the 11 th day of April, 2022.
Sessions Case No. 261 of 2017
P.R.C.No.30/2016 of J.F.C.M., Sathyavedu
Cr.No.71/2014 of Nagalapuram Police Station
NameoftheThe State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Complainantthe Sub Inspector of Police, Nagalapuram Police Station.
NAME OF THE ACCUSED:
1. V. Kumaran, aged 20 years, son of Vendan, No.22A, VOC First
Street, Erikanjeri,Chennai.
2. Vendan Karthik, 24 years, Son of Vendan, No.22A, VOC First
Street, Erikanjeri, Chennai.
3. Thoti Ganesh, aged 26 years, Son of T. Chandraiah, Keelapudi
H/W, Pitchatur Mandal, Chittoor District.
4. S. Mohan Babu @ Laddu Mohan, aged 28 years, Son of S.
Shanmugham, Neeruvai H/W, Pitchatur Mandal.
5. Arumugham Prakash, aged 32 years, son of Arumugham,
Neeruvai H/W, Pitchatur Mandal.
6. Nakkalakona R. Venkatesh, aged 32 years, Son of Rangaiah,
Ramagiri Village, Pitchatur Mandal.
7. Thoti Gopi, 41 years, Son of Thoti Subramanyam,
Nainarukandriga H/Wada, Narayanavanam Mandal.
TABULAR FORMUNDER RULE 67 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF
PRACTICE
01. Serial numberSessions case No.261 of 2017 2
02. Name of Police StationNagalapuram Police Station, Chittoor District.
03. Crime NumberCr.No.71/2014.
04. Date of offence23102014
05. Date of complaint24102014
06. Date of apprehension24102014
07. Date of Committal03072017
08. Date of commencement of trial13012020
11. Date of closure of trial06032020
12. Sentence or order :
In the result, A1 to A3, A5 to A8 are found not guilty for the offences Under sections 307,353,411 I.P.C, 20 (1) (c) (iii) (iv) (ix) and 29(4)(a) of A.P. Forest Act 1967, section 27(1) of Arms Act and section 55(2) of Biological diversity Act, section 3 and 4 of red sander wood transit rules 1969 as such A1 to A3,A5 to A8 are acquitted of the same U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds executed by the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per
Sec.437A of Cr.P.C., M.O1 and 2 two knives ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Reasons for Delay:
The JFCM, Sathyavedu committed the case to Sessions Division on 03072017. After registering the case as S.C.No.261/2017 made over to Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikalahasthi for disposal. Accordingly, this Court issued summons to accused and they made their appearance. Due to Covid19 pandemic situation, this Court could not proceed with the matter. On 13012020, schedule was given, but due to pandemic situation, the matter has been adjourned from time to time and thereafter, again schedule was fixed and commenced the trial and it was completed on 06032020 and posted the matter for 313 Cr.P.C examination. Heard the arguments on 04042022 and posted for judgment on 11042022.
3
This case is coming on 08032022 before me for final hearing and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Sekhar, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State and of Sri I. Ramesh, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Nagalapuram Police
Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.71/2014 for the offences under Sections 353,307,379 or 411,120(B) of IPC,
Sec.20 (1) (c) (iii) (iv) (ix) and Section 29(4)(a) of A.P. Forest (Amendment) Act 1967, Section 3 and 4 of red sandal wood transit rules and section 55 (2) of Bio Diversity Act 2002 and Section 27(1) of Arms Act.
2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that
On 23102014 at 2.30 pm, on receipt of the credible information L.W.18 SI of police, conducted raid in regard to illegal transporting of red sandals in the thorny bushes, Erracheeruvu tank, Nagalapuram Mandal, in the mean time A1 to A8 were put together attempt to commit the murder of the L.W18 and his staff with swords and also throwing stones, obstructed the legitimate duties. On that L.W18 attacked them by showing his service pistol, out of 8 persons A1 to A3 were caught hold and the remaining accused were escaped from the spot, then L.W18 4 arrested the A1 to A3 and seized 15 red sandal logs total weight about 64.800Kgs worth of Rs.65,000/ and 2 swords from the possession of the accused under the cover of Mahazarnama, basing on mahazar, registered the same as a case in
Cr.No.71/2014 for the above said Sections. Thereafter, A1 to A3 were sent to judicial remand.
(b)During the course of investigation on 20122014
L.W18 arrested A8 in the presence of L.W9 and 12 mediators and on 2422015 A7 was arrested by L.W16 in Cr.No.11/2015 of
Pichatur police station, thereafter on 13.3.2015 A7 was produced
before the AJFCM court Satyavedu on execution of PT warrant, on
26.2.2015 A6 was arrested by L.W.17 in Cr.No. 85/2017 of
Pichatur police station, thereafter on 20.3.2015 A6 was produced
before the AJFCM court Sathyavedu on execution of PT warrant,
during the course of investigation and L.W18 made effort to arrest the A4 but there is no chance of apprehension as he is absconding as such the prosecution is liberty to file separate charge sheet against A4. During the course of investigation, the seized property ie 15 Red Sandal logs were forwarded to the FBO, Nagalapuram and that L.W.15 received the same and issued a formC for further investigation. After completion of investigation L.W19 filed the charge sheet before the Court.
3.The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sathyavedu on filing the Charge Sheet took up cognizance for the offences 5 punishable under Section ,120B,353,307, 379 or 411 IPC, Sec.20 (1) (c), (iii) (iv) (ix), 29(a) of A.P. Forest Act 2016 under rule 3 and 4 of red sander transit rules and Section 55 (2) of Bio Diversity
Act 2002 and section 27(1) of Arms Act against A1 to A3,A5 to A8.
The offences alleged against the accused 20 (1) (c), (iii) (iv) (ix), 29(a) of A.P. Forest Act 2016 under rule 3 and 4 of red sander transit rules being exclusively triable by Court Of Sessions, the case was numbered as PRC 30/2016, after appearance of the A1 to A3,A5 to A8 and after complying with the statutory procedure like distribution of copies of document etc., the case was committed to Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble District & Sessions
Judge, Chittoor division took the case on file numbered it, and
made it over to this court, for trial and disposal in accordance with law. Thus, this Court took up the case for trial.
4.After appearance of the A1 to A3, A5 to A8 charges were framed for the offences punishable Under Section 307, 353, 411 I.P.C, under sections 20 (1) (c) (iii) (iv) (ix) and 29 (4) (a) of
A.P. Forest Act 1967, Section 27 (1) of Arms Act and section 55 (2) of Biological diversity Act, Section 3 and 4 of Red Sander Wood
Transit Rules 1969 by the predecessor of this court and read over to the accused, having understood the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution 6
L.Ws.1, 5, 9, 10 to 15 and L.W.18 were examined as PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A3, A5 to A8 were examined under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., having understood they denied the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence, no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.
6.Heard arguments from prosecution and defence counsel.
7.Now the point for consideration is
Whether the prosecution has successful in establishing the guilt of accused for the offence punishable Under Sections 307,353,411 I.P.C, 20 (1) (c) (iii) (iv) (ix) and 29 (4) (a) of A.P.
Forest Act 1967, section 27(1) of Arms Act and section 55(2) of
Biological diversity Act, section 3 and 4 of Red Sander Wood
Transit Rules 1969 beyond all reasonable doubt?
8. POINT:
The prosecution has examined the P.W1 to 10 got marked the E.xP1 to P.18 and M.O1 and 2. Apart from that the P.W1 and
P.W.2 are police constables who said to have been accompanied with the P.W10 to the scene of offence place, P.W.3 to P.W6 who are said to have been acted as mediators at the time of alleged arrest of A1 to 3,A5 and A8 and seizure made by P.W.10, P.W7 and P.W.8 who said to have been acted as mediator at the time of 7 alleged arrest of A6 and A7, P.W.9 is FBO who received the seized property from P.W.10 and P.w10 who arrested the A1 to A3, A5 to
A8 and seized the case property from the possession of A1 to A3.
Apart from that E.xP1 is the confession cum seizure mahazarnama dt 23.10.2014, E.xP2 is the signature of P.W3 on
E.xP1, E.xP3 is the signature of P.W3 on arrest cum confession
Mahazarnama dt 23.2.2015, E.xP4 is the signature of P.W4 on
E.xP1, E.xP5 is arrest cum confession Mahazarnama dt 20.12.2014, E.xP6 is the signature of P.W.6 on the document dt 23.2.2015, E.xP7 and P8 are the signatures of P.W.7 on confession cum seizure Mahazar dt 20.10.2014,E.xP9 is the signature of
P.W7 on confession cum seizure Mahazar dt 24.2.2015, E.xP10 and P11 are the signatures of P.W.8 on the document dt 20.10.2014 at about 5.30pm, E.xP12 is the signature of P.W.8 on confession cum seizure Mahazarnama dt 24.2.2015. E.xP13 is the seizure list, E.xP14 to P16 formA to C, E.xP17 is First Information report and Ex.P18 is mediator report dated 23022015 at 1130 am. M.O1 and 2 are two knives.
9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the case of the prosecution is that on 23102014 at 2.30 pm, on receipt of the credible information P.W10 SI of police, conducted raid in regard to illegal transporting of red sandals in the thorny bushes, Erracheeruvu tank, Nagalapuram Mandal, in the mean time A1 to A8 were put together attempt to commit the murder of 8 the P.W10 and his staff with swords and also throwing stones, obstructed the legitimate duties. On that P.W10 attacked them by showing his service pistol, out of 8 persons A1 to A3 were caught hold and the remaining accused were escaped from the spot, then
P.w10 arrested the A1 to A3 and seized 15 red sandal logs total weight about 64.800Kgs worth of Rs.65,000/ and MO.1 and 2 two knives from the possession of the A1 to A3 under the cover of
Mahazarnama, basing on mahazar, registered the case issued
E.xP17 FIR, later,P.W10 arrested the remaining accused, So the evidence of P.W1 and PW2 are equally corroborated with the evidence of P.W10 each other, there is no inconsistency in their evidence, thus the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence, as such accused are liable to be punished in accordance with law.
10.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of P.W1,P.W2 and P.W10 are not corroborated with each other with regard to time of occurrence of alleged seizure and weight of the seized property and there is no evidence placed before the court to show that whether the accused entered into reserved forest area and where they collected the said 15 red sandal log. Further the learned counsel for the accused argued that the alleged seizure place is surrounded by residential houses, so who prevented the P.W10 to secure the inhabitants of the said locality to act as mediators, as well as the P.W19 has not 9 collected any officials like as panchayathi secretary or VRO of the said village to act as mediators at the time of alleged seizure made by P.W10 as such the P.W10 has failed to follow the procedure prescribed under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C as well as section 44 of
Forest Act, it is duty of the P.W10 to submit the seizure property forthwith to the forest higher officials, Further the evidence of
P.W1 and P.W2 has shaken many infirmities during the cross examination as such there is no evidential value attached to their oral testimonies. Thus the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused, as such he is entitled to be acquittal.
11.Upon perusing the rival contents of both side, it is held that the prosecution could have to establish that the accused were entered into reserved forest and carrying the red sandal logs illegally by cutting away the same without obtaining any license from the Divisional range forest officer at the time of alleged arrest made by the P.W.10. At this juncture as seen the evidence of P.W1 and P.W2 who are police persons their evidence goes to show that on 23.10.2014 at about 2.30pm L.W.10 had received credible information about transporting of red sandal,on that they were proceeded along with L.W10 and mediators to Erracheruvu area of
Nagalapruam Mandal, they noticed gathering of 8 persons and they tried to escape in the form of attack by sticks and knives.
Immediately SI of police P.W10 prevented them by showing his 10 pistol and caught hold three persons out of 8 persons as the remaining persons were escaped from there. On enquiry the said three persons themselves disclosed as A1 to A3, then upon causing search, it was noticed the presence of 15 red sandal logs weighing about Kgs 64.800 gms, then the SI of police seized the same and painted with serial numbers 1 to 15 and drafted E.xP1 confession cum seizure Mahazar. As well as the evidence of P.W10 has disclosed in the same manner as deposed by P.W1 and P.W2 in regard to alleged seizure and arrest of A1 to A3.
12. During the cross examination, it is the evidence of
P.W1 that they proceeded to the scene of offence place by two wheeler vehicles and a police jeep, but he does not remember the number of two wheeler vehicles used to visit the scene of offence place. But whereas the evidence of P.W2 goes to show that they proceeded to the scene of offence by two wheeler vehicles six in number. So the evidence of P.W2 kept silent in regard to using the police jeep to reach the scene of offence place, In addition to that it is the evidence of P.W10 in the cross examination that on the day they engaged private vehicle and all of them went to scene of offence place in the said vehicle, thus the entire evidence of P.W10 kept silent in regarding to using the motor cycles and police jeep.
More over it is the evidence of P.W1 in cross examination that they reached to the scene of offence place through Vinoba Nagar, which is situated at a distance of 100 meter from the Erra Cheruvu land 11 mark and reached to the scene of offence place by 3.00pm and after completion of entire proceedings they reached to police station by 6.30 pm, whereas P.W2 deposed that the scene of offence is located at a distance of 30 meters from Erracheruvu land mark and they reached to the scene of offence place by 2.50pm. So there is an inconsistency in the evidence of P.W1,P.W2 and P.W10 in regard to mode of transport, time of reached to the scene of offence place and returned to police station.
13.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that the said Erracheruvu tank is situated adjacent to east
Harijanawada colony and which is surrounded by agricultural lands, so it is impossible to keep the alleged contraband property at scene of offence place, if anything place at there, definitely it would be visible to the farmers or in habitats of the said locality.
At this juncture as seen the cross examination of P.W4 he categorically stated that Erracheruruvu tank is situated adjacent to east Harijanawada and that the said tank is surrounded by agricultural lands. So it is fact that if anything placed in the said places, it would be visible to the farmers or inhabitants of the said locality. Further when there is inconsistency in the evidence of
P.W1, P.W2 and 10 , it should require corroboration with other material witnesses.
14.At this juncture it is the case of the prosecution that 12 the P.W10 arrested the A1 to A3 and seized the 15 red sander logs from their possession on the alleged date in the presence of P.W3 and 4, so the P.W3 and 4 are material witnesses to prove the alleged arrest and seizure made by P.W10. On that as seen the evidence of P.W3 and 4 goes to show that 23.10.2014 at about 4.00pm while there were present in the office of P.W3, they were called by P.W10 by informed that the P.W10 seized the red sandal logs from Erracheruvu area and also noticed three persons were apprehended by him, requested them to sign on the written document, then they agreed to sign and signed on the said document, except that they do not know anything about the alleged arrest and seizure made by P.W1. Further it is the version of the P.W4 that he does not know anything about the arrest of A8 made by P.W10 on 23.2.2015 as he signed on the written document at the request of the P.W10. So when the evidence of
P.W3 and 4 were not supported to the case of the prosecution, thereby the learned APP declared them as hostile witnesses and learned App was permitted to cross examine the P.W3 and 4 but nothing could be elicited to prove the contents of E.xP1 and Ex.P 18 confession cum arrest mahazar dt 23.2.2015, thus the evidence of P.W3 and 4 are not corroborated with the evidence of
P.W1,P.W2 and P.W10.
15.It is the evidence of P.W5 that he and one Vijaya
Kumar were taken to Sugar factory premises at Nindra cross road 13 where the SI of police arrested one offender at there under the cover of E.xP5 dt 20.12.2014, but due to lapse of time he cannot identify the said arrested person by name Gopi. So the evidence of
P.W5 has not disclosed anything that the A8 is the said arrested persons, it is also the evidence of P.W.6 that on 23.2.2015 at 11.00am he was present at Panchyat office situated opposite to
Nagalapuram police station, by that time he was called by SI of police and the SI of police apprehended one person in his presence but he could not remember his name and he is not in position to identify the said person, so the evidence of P.W6 has not disclosed anything with regard to specific named person arrested by the
P.W10 and that when the evidence of P.W6 is not supported by the prosecution thereby the learned APP declared him as hostile and learned APP was permitted to cross examine the witness, but nothing could be elicited anything to identify the arrested person.
16. Further as per the case of the prosecution that P.W6 and 7 were acted as mediators at the time of arresting the A5 to
A7, the evidence P.W6 goes to show that on 23.2.2015 at about 11.00am he was present at Panchayath office near to
Nagulapuram Police station, by that time he was called by SI of police, then after all of them proceeded to Neeruvay village, the SI of police apprehended one person in his presence and P.W3, but he does not know the name of the said arrested person and he cannot identify him on seeing him. Further it is also the evidence 14 of P.W.7, that he does not know anything about the arrest of the offender made by P.W10 on 20.10.2014 as he signed on the written document at the request of the SI of police Pichatur. So when the evidence of P.W6 and 7 were not supported to the case of the prosecution, thereby the learned APP declared them as hostile witnesses and learned App was permitted to cross examine the
P.W6 and 7 but nothing could be elicited to prove the contents of
Ex.P18 confession cum arrest mahazars dt 23.2.2015, 20.10.2014 and 24.2.2015, thus the evidence of P.W6 and 7 are not corroborated with the evidence of P.W10.
17.It is also the evidence of P.W.8, that he does not know anything about the arrest of the offender made by P.W10 on 20.10.2014 as he signed on the written document at the request of the SI of police Pichatur. So when the evidence of P.W8 is not supported to the case of the prosecution, thereby the learned APP declared him as hostile witnesses and learned App was permitted to cross examine the P.W8 but nothing could be elicited to prove the contents of confession cum arrest mahazars dt, 20.10.2014 and 24.2.2015, thus the evidence of P.W8 is not corroborated with the evidence of P.W10.
18.Further as seen section 44 of Forest Act clearly speaks as follows that seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure thereupon 15 (1) Where there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or forest produce, such timber, or forest produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any forest officer or police officer.
(2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property or the receptacle, if any, in which it is contained, a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, except where the offender agrees in writing forthwith to get the offence compounded, without any unreasonable delay, either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorized by the Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as authorized officer) or make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate.
Provided that where the timber or forest produce with respect to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of the Central or State Government and the offender is not known, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to the Divisional
Forest Officer.
(2A) Where an authorized officer seizes under subsection (1) any timber or forest produce or where any such timber or forest produce is produced before him under subsection(2) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, in respect thereof, he may order confiscation of the timber or forest produce 16 so seized or produced together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats or vehicles used in committing such offence.
(2B) No order of confiscating any property shall be made under subsection (2A) unless the person from whom the property is seized is given,
a) a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such property;
(b) an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may specified in the notice against the grounds for confiscation; and
(c) a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.
(2C) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (2B), no order of confiscation under subsection (2A) of any tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle shall be made if the owner thereof proves to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that it was used in carrying the property without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle in committing the offence and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use.
(2D) Any forest officer not below the rank of a Conservator of
Forests empowered by the Government in this behalf by notification, may within thirty days from the date of the order of confiscation by the authorized officer under subsection (2A) either suomotu or on application call for and examine the record 17 of that order and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to made and pass such orders as he may think fit:
Provided that no order, prejudicial to any person, shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard.
(2E) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under subsection (2A) or subsection (2D) may, within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the District Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the property has been seized, and the District Court shall after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit and the order of the District Court so passed shall be final.
(3) Any forest officer not below the rank of a Forester, who or whose subordinate has seized any tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle under subsection (1) and where he makes a report of such seizure to the Magistrate under subsection (2) may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required
before the Magistrate.
(4) Upon the receipt of any report under subsection (2), the
Magistrate shall, except where the offence is compounded, take
such measures as may be necessary for the trial of the accused and the disposal of the property according to law.
(5) The property seized under this section, shall be kept in the custody of the forest officer not below the rank of a Forest Guard or the Village Headman until the compensation for compounding 18 the offence is paid or until an order of the Magistrate directing its disposal is received.
19.So as per the section 44 (2) of the forest Act, the P.W10 has to submit the seized property immediately to the assistant
Conservator of Forests by indicating mark on the seized property.
But whereas seen the E.xP13 seizure list and E.xP14 to P16 Form
A to C given by the Forest Beat Officer P.W.9 who received the seized property from P.W.10, so the P.W10 has submitted the case property to below the rank of assistant conservator of forest. So having considering all these infirmities it can be said that the
P.W10 has not followed the procedure as contemplated under section 44 of Forest Act. To that context it is rely upon the decision report in 2010 (1) ALT (crl) 32 S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs
State of A.P.
20.Further the prosecution has to establish the material fact that the accused entered into reserved forest area to commit the alleged offence and the alleged scene of offence area comes under reserved forest. But there is no material evidence placed
before this court to show that alleged scene of offence place
Erracheruvu area comes under reserved forest area. More over it is fact that the scene of offence area was surrounded by agricultural lands and residential area as deposed by the P.W1, P.W2 and
P.W10 in their cross examination. So if the version of P.W1,P.W2 19 and P.W10 is to be taken into consideration it can be said that the scene of offence area does not come under reserved forest area as to the forest authorities must post the check post at entrance of reserved forest area in order to prevent the public to enter into reserved forest area and that the evidence of P.w1,P.W2 and
P.W10 are kept silent with regard to check post is situated at the entrance of scene of offence place.
21.More over before going to appreciation of evidence of prosecution witness it can be pertinent to see section 20(1)(c)(iii)
(iv) &(ix) of A.P forest Act 1967, as the prosecution has levelled charges against the accused under the said section, so the said section speaks as follows.
Section 20. Penalties for trespass or damage in reserved forest and prohibited in such forest: (1) Any person who
c) in a reserved forest i. kindles, keeps or carried any fire, except at such season and subject to such conditions as the Divisional Forest Officer may, from time to time, specify in this behalf; ii. trespasses, pastures cattle or allows cattle to trespass; iii. causes any damage, either wilfully or negligently in felling or cutting any trees or dragging any timber; iv. fells, girdles, lops, taps or burns any tree or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages the same; 20 v. quarries, stones, burns lime or charcoal; vi. collects or subjects to any manufacturing process, any forest produce; vii. clears or breaks up or ploughs any land for cultivation or for any other purpose; viii. hunts, shoots, fishes, poisons water or sets traps or snares; ix. damages, alters or removes any wall, ditch embankment, fence, hedge or railing ; or x. removes any forest produce;
22.So that the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under 20(1)(c)(iii)(iv) &(ix) of A.P forest Act 1967 that the accused causes any damage, either willfully or negligently in felling or cutting any trees or dragging any timber, collects or subjects to any manufacturing process, any forest produce or damages, alters or removes any wall, ditch embankment, fence, hedge or railing from the reserved forest area. At this juncture as seen the evidence of P.W1,P.W2 and
P.W10 are kept silent in regard to that where the accused secured the said 15 red sandal logs , and the P.W10 has not collected any evidence to enquire anybody to prove the material fact that where the accused collected the said red sandal log and from whom .
Further the entire evidence of P.W1,P.W2 and 10 were kept silent with regard to that they have seen while accused entered into reserved forest area and cutting the red sandal logs by using the 21 instruments or tools, as the P.W10 has not seized anything of cutting instruments or tools from the possession of the accused at the time of allege arrest and seizure made by P.W10. Further the entire evidence of P.W1 and P.W2 were kept silent with regard to in which place of forest area the accused has collected the said 15 sandal logs, and that it is not the evidence of P.W10 that the scene of area covered with red sandal trees, it is also kept silent to collect any evidence, how the accused brought the said 15 red sandal logs to the scene of offence in order to keep the same from which place and that the PW10 did not visit the said cutting place of area in the forest during the course of his investigation as admitted in their cross examination. So there is no material evidence placed before this court to show that when and where the accused was alleged to be cutting or collecting the said 15 red sandal logs. Further there is no evidence placed before this court to show that the accused made prearranged plan with an intention to attack the police party with deadly weapons and the evidence of
P.W1,P.W2 and P.W10 have not disclosed anything that the accused caused obstruction to the legitimate duties of the
P.W1,P.W2 and P.W10.
23. In view of aforesaid discussion and considering the facts and circumstances it can be said that mere testimony of
P.W1 and P.W2 alone is not safe to rely to believe the incident that is said to have taken place on 23.10.2014, as the standard of proof 22 required to prove a criminal charge against the accused is beyond reasonable doubt. The oral testimonies of P.W1 and P.W2 are not corroborated with each other there is inconsistency in their evidence with regard to alleged arrest and seizure made by P.W.10 as to the evidence of P.W3 to 8 are not supported to the evidence of P.W1 and P.W2. Further there is no cogent evidence place
before this court to show that the M.O1 and 2 comes under
section 27(1) of arms act. So the ingredients under section 353,307, 411 I.P.C and the sections 20 (1) (c) (iii)(iv)(ix) and section 29 (1)(4)(a) of A.P. Forest Act 1967, section 27(1) of Arms act and section 55(2) of Biological diversity Act, section 3 and 4 of red sander wood transit rules 1969 as alleged are not proved against the accused. Therefore, in view of the all facts and circumstances discussed above and after meticulous evaluation of the evidence on record it is concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under aforesaid offences . So it can be safe to come to conclusion that the A1 to A3,A5 to A8 are entitled to clean acquittal.
Accordingly, I answered this point against the prosecution.
24.In the result, A1 to A3, A5 to A8 are found not guilty for the offences Under sections 307,353,411 I.P.C, 20 (1) (c) (iii)
(iv) (ix) and 29(4)(a) of A.P. Forest Act 1967, section 27(1) of Arms
Act and section 55(2) of Biological diversity Act, section 3 and 4 of red sander wood transit rules 1969 as such A1 to A3,A5 to A8 are 23 acquitted of the same U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds executed by the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437A of Cr.P.C., M.O1 and 2 two knives ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of April, 2022.
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
SRIKALAHASTHI.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:For Defence:
PW.1: G. Chandra Babu. Defence.
PW.2: D. Ambedkar.
PW.3: C. Mahesh Reddy.
PW.4: S. Babu.
PW.5: V. Jagadeesh.
PW.6: Aparanji Raju.
PW.7: D. Ravi.
PW.8: B. Arumugham Reddy.
PW9: K. Venugopal
PW10: V. Suman.
Documents marked
For Prosecution: For Defence: NONE
Ex.P1: Confession cum Seizure Mahazarnama.
Ex.P2: Signature of P.W.2 on Ex.P1.
Ex.P3: Signature of P.W.3 on Arrest cum Confession Mahazar.
Ex.P4: Signature of P.W.3 on Ex.P1.
24
Ex.P5: Arrest cum Mahazarnama dated 20122014.
Ex.P6: Signature of P.W.6 on document dated 23022015.
Ex.P7: Signature of P.W.7 on confession cum Seizure Mahazarnama at 530 PM, dated 20102014.
Ex.P8: Signature of P.W.7 on confession cum Seizure Mahazarnama at 715 PM, dated 20102014.
Ex.P9: Signature of P.W.7 on confession cum Seizure Mahazarnama, dated 24022015 at 700 AM.
Ex.P10: Signature of P.W.8 on confession cum Seizure Mahazarnama at 530 PM, dated 20102014.
Ex.P11: Signature of P.W.8 on confession cum Seizure Mahazarnama at 715 PM, dated 20102014.
Ex.P12: Signature of P.W.8 on confession cum Seizure Mahazarnama, dated 24022015 at 700 AM.
Ex.P13: Seizure List.
Ex.P14: FormA,
Ex.P15: FormB
Ex.P16: FormC
Ex.P17: Original First Information Report.
Ex.P18: Mediator’s Report dated 23022015 at 1130 AM.
//MATERIAL OBJECTS//
M.O.1: Knife.
M.O.2: Knife
ASJ, SKHT
//FAIR JUDGMENT IN S.C.NO. 261 OF 2017,
DATED 11042022//