CC. No.44 of 2012 - 1 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST
CLASS :: KOILKUNTLA.
Present :- P.BABU
Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Koilkuntla.
Dated Monday, the 16th day of March 2020.
C.C.No.44 of 2012
The State Represented by the Forest Range Officer, Dhone in
Forest Offence Report No.79 /2011-2012.
.... Complainant
-Versus-
1. Kantamaneni Raghavendra, Son of Venkata Rao, Aged 30 years, Resident of Koilakuntla Town.[A1 abated since he died]
2. Dasari Anuragam, Son of Brahmaiah, Aged 22 years,
Bhakarapuram of Pulivendula Town, Kadapa District, Driver of
TATA Sumo bearing No.AP04-X-8520.[A2 abated since he died]
3. Dasari Chandra Mohan, Son of Venkata Keshava, Aged 20 years, Resident of Rajareddy Colony, Pulivendula, Kadapa
District.
4. R.Madhava Reddy, Son of Chinna Narasimha Reddy, Resident of Revanur Village, Koilakuntla Mandal, Kurnool District.
5. S.Nageswara Reddy @ Sarveswara Reddy, Son of S.Venkata
Subba Reddy, Resident of Kalugotla Village, Koilakuntla Mandal.
6. Mandla Venkata Sunil, Son of Venkata Ramana, Aged 20 years, Kothapeta Village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District.
[A6 abated since he died]
….. Accused
This Case was coming on 26-02-2020 for Arguments in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri D.Madhusudhana Reddy, learned Counsel for the Accused and on hearing both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 2 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
J U D G M E N T
The Forest Range Officer, Dhone, has filed Charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 to 6 in Forest Offence Report No.79 of 2011-2012 for the offence under Section 29 [ii] [4] [a] [i] of A.P. Forest
Act, 1967, Rule 3 of A.P. Sandal Wood and Red Sander Wood Transmit
Rules, 1969, under Section 420, 379 R/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:-
On 11-02-2011, at 05-00 AM, on receipt of credible information, the Inspector of Police, Koilakuntla Circle along with the
Sub Inspectors of Police, Koilakuntla P.S. and Uyyalawada P.S. along with secured Panchayatdars and their staff were proceeded to the locality situated at Nandyal- Koilakuntla Road, at the outskirts of
Koilakuntla Town, that there, they found six persons and one TATA
Sumo Vehicle No.AP04-X-8520 near a house on the left side of the road and on seeing them, the A1 to A6 were tried to skulk away, and among them, the A1 to A3 were detained by them, but the A4 to A6 were ran away from that place, and on interrogation, the A1 to A3 admitted the offence with the assistance of the A4 to A6; that thereafter, the above said Police officials were measured the Red
Sander Dressed Logs and prepared a List and thereafter, they were seized 30 in number Red Sander Logs and TATA Sumo vehicle in the presence of the Panchayatdars under cover of the Panchanama; that then, the A1 to A3 brought to the Police and registered a Case against them as in Cr.No.14 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 420, 379
R/w 34 of IPC and Section 27 of A.P. Forest Act and under Rule 3 of
A.P. Sandal Wood and Red Sander Wood Transit Rules, 1969; and the
A1 to A3 were remanded to judicial custody.
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 3 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
[2.1].On 15-08-2011, on receipt of information from the Inspector of Police, the Deputy Range Officer, Banaganapalle
Section and the Forest Beat Officer, Owk Beat were proceeded to
Koilkuntla Police Station and took the seized entire contraband and
TATA Sumo Vehicle into their custody and registered a Case as in
Forest Offence Report No.79 of 2011-2012 under the above section of law; and that they seized contraband were kept in the custody of one
R.Renuka being the then Forest Beat Officer, Owk Beat for safe custody and receipt obtained; and that after completion of investigation in this case, the Forest Range Officer, Dhone has laid charge sheet against the A1 to A6.
3. Cognizance of the offence U/Section 29 [ii] [4] [a] [i] of
A.P. Forest Act, 1967, under Section 379 R/w 34 of IPC has taken by this Court against the A1 to A6 and issued Summons.
4. On appearance of the A2 to A5 before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The
Case against the A1 and A6 was abated since they were died.
5.The A2 to A5 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
The sum and substance of the Charge sheet was read over and explained to them in their Vernacular, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of the trial, the Prosecution has examined totally six [6] Witnesses as the PW1 to PW6 and Exhibits P1 to P6 were got marked on behalf of the Prosecution. The evidence of
LW.3 and LW.7 is closed by this court.
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 4 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
7.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, the A3 to A5 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found in the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence. [Case against the A2 is abated since he died.] 8.Heard both the sides. Perused the material records.
9.Now, the Point for determination is :- “Whether the Prosecution has succeeded in
establishing the guilt of the Accused for the offence under
section 29 [ii] [4] [a] [i] of A.P. Forest Act, 1967, under Section
379 R/w 34, alleged or otherwise beyond all reasonable doubt?”
10.In this case, the PW1 and the PW2 are the Panchayatdars.
They deposed in their respective Chief Examinations are that they do not know LW1 to LW3 [B.Murali being the Inspector of Police, Sub
Inspector of Police, Koilakuntla P.S. and the Sub Inspector of Police,
Uyyalawada P.S.], LW5 [Vasagiri Ramaiah] and other official Witnesses in this case; and that they do not know the Accused persons; and that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. They further deposed that at about 07-08 years back, they signed on some papers at the request of the LW2 [Sub Inspector of Police, Koilakuntla P.S.] and that they do not know the contents of it; and that they cannot identified the case Property in this case. Thereafter, they both turned hostile. They were cross examined by the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, nothing was elicited from them for the case of the
Prosecution.
[10.1].The PW3 deposed in his Chief Examination is that he knows all the Accused persons in this case; and that on 11-02-
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 5 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
2011, he received phone message with regard to illegal transportation of Red Sandal Logs at the outskirts of Koilakuntla Village, near Kundu
River, and accordingly, he collected LW2 and LW3 [Sub Inspector of
Police, Koilakuntla P.S. and the Sub Inspector of Police, Uyyalawada
P.S. respectively] and other staff and also PW1 and the PW2 were proceeded to the scene of offence; that then, at about 05-00 AM, they reached the house of the A1, that there, they found six persons along with Vehicle bearing No.AP04-X-8520 and on seeing the, they tried to skulk away from that place, but the A1 to A3 were detained by them, and remaining persons were skulk away from that place; and that, they found 30 in numbers of Red Sandal Logs at the place of the
Accused; and on interrogation, the A1 revealed his discriptive particulars and confessed the commission of offence along with A4, A5 and the deceased A6; and that they also enquired with the deceased
A2 and the A3 respectively, and they deposed the same version of the
A1; and that they measured the entire contraband and seized the same along with the TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.AP04-X-8520 under cover of Panchanama; and thereafter, they brought the detained
Accused persons to the Police Station along with the case Property; and that basing on the Panchanama, he registered a Case as in
Cr.No.14 of 2011 for the offence under Section 420, 379 R/w 34 of IPC and Section 27 of A.P. Forest Act and Section 3 of Red Sandal Wood
Transit Rules 1970; and thereafter, they sent the Deceased A1, A2 and
A3 to judicial custody on 11-02-2011; and thereafter, on 20-07-2011, he transferred the case along with the case Property to the LW6 [P.Kathal being the then Deputy Range Officer] to conduct further investigation in this case since on the point of jurisdiction.
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 6 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
[10.2].During the Cross Examination of the PW3, he deposed that he had received information at about 4-00 AM on the date of Ex.P3; and that he collected the PW1 and the PW2 near
Panchayat Office at Tea Bunk and the same was not mentioned in the
Ex.P3. He further deposed that the distance in between his office and the scene of offence is about 4 Kms. He admitted that there was no signature of scriber who scribe the contents of Ex.P3 and also do not mentioned the particulars of the PW1 and PW2 in the Ex.P3. He also admitted that he had not mentioned the house number of the A1 in
Ex.P3. He do not know the names of the arrested Accused persons in his hand. Thereafter, he denied all the formal suggestions posed by the Counsel for the Accused.
11.The PW4/V.P.Subbarayudu being the then Sub Inspector of
Police, Koilakuntla P.S. deposed in his Chief Examination is that he cannot identified the Accused since the alleged offence was took place at about eight years back. He further deposed that on 11-02-2011, while he was presnt in the Police Station, he was received instructions from the PW3 and accordingly, he went to turning point near Kundu
River at the outskirts of Koilakuntla Town, that there, they found six persons and tried to skulk away from that place, that then, they caught hold three persons among them and interrogated and that they [Accused] confessed the transporting Red Sandal Logs for their livelihood; that then, the PW3 brought the Accused persons along with
Contraband to the Police Station; and that they seized 30 Red Sandal
Logs under cover of Panchanama/Ex.P3.
[11.1].During the Cross Examination of the PW4, he deposed that the PW3 had picked up the PW1 and the PW2 at
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 7 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
Jammalamadugu turning point. He admitted that there is no signature of the PW3 in the Ex.P3/Panchaanama. He admitted that as on the date of offence in this case, he was working as Station House
Officer for their Police Station. Thereafter, he denied the formal suggestions posed by the Counsel for the Accused.
12.The PW5/R.Renuka being the Forest Beat Officer deposed in her Chief Examination is that on 15-08-2011, the LW6 [P.Kathal being the then Deputy Range Officer] has brought her to Koilakuntla
Police Station, that there, they found 30 Red Sandal Logs and one
Vehicle Bearing No.AP04-X-8520; and that Koilakuntla Police have handed over the Case Property to the LW6 [P.Kathal being the then
Deputy Range Officer] who inturn handed over the same to her for safe custody; that then, she registerd Primary Office Report [POR] vide bearing No.22 of 2011 for the offence under Section 29 [ii] 4 [a] of A.P. Forest Act, Section 3 of A.P. Sandal Wood Rule 1899 and under
Section 420, 379 of IPC; that thereafter, she along with LW6 [P.Kathal being the then Deputy Range Officer] had handedover the Case
Property along with Case Record to the then Forest Range Officer,
Dhone Range.
[12.1].During the Cross Examination of the PW5, she admitted that she has shown the date of offence as 15-08-2011 in
Ex.P6. She also admitted that there is no documentary proof to show that she has handed over the Case Property to the LW6 [P.Kathal being the then Deputy Range Officer]; and that she denied all the formal suggestions posed by the Counsel for the Accused.
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 8 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
13.The PW6/P.Kathal being the then Deputy Range Officer deposed that prior to six months to 11-08-2015, Koilakuntla Police have seized 330 logs of Red Sandal Logs along with one Tata Sumo
Vehicle as per the instructions of their Forest Range Officer, namely,
Obula Reddy; that then, they found total Red Sandal Logs is about 509
Kgs, that thereafter, the Police of Koilakuntla had handed over the case bundle to the PW5. She further deposed that she has not conducted any investigation in this case.
[13.1].During the Cross Examination of the
PW6, she admitted that she has not prepared any Panchanama for the measurement and weighment of seized Red Sandal Logs. She also admitted that there is no proof to show that in her presence, the PW5 had handed over the case Property in this case. She denied the formal suggestions posed by the Counsel for the Accused.
14. Appreciation of evidence:- [14.1]It is the case of the Prosecution that on 11-02- 2011, at 05-00 AM, PW3 had recevied the credible information about the illegal transportaion of red sandal logs, then he had secured the
PW1 and PW2, PW5 and LW3 [Sub Inspector of Uyyalawada P.S.] and proceeded to the outskrit of Koilkntla Town, near Kundu River on
Nandyal- Koilakuntla Road and by the time they reached therein, they found six persons and one TATA Sumo Vehicle No.AP04-X-8520 near a house on the left side of the road and on seeing them, the A1 to A6 were tried to skulk away, and among them, they caught hold A1 to A3 and on enquiry, A1 to A3 confessed the offence and thereafter, PW3 measured the Red Sandal Dressed Logs and prepared a List and then
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 9 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
seized 30 (thirty) Red Sandal Logs and TATA Sumo vehicle in the presence of the PW1 and PW2 under cover of the Panchanama/Ex.P3.
After that PW3 brought the seized Case Property along with Crime
Vehicle and A1 to A3 to Koilkuntla Police Station and based on Ex.P3, he registered a Case against the Accused as in Cr.No.14 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 420, 379 R/w 34 of IPC and Section 27 of
A.P. Forest Act and under Rule 3 of A.P. Sandal Wood and Red Sander
Wood Transit Rules, 1969; and forwarded A1 to A3 to remand for their judicial custody.
[14.2] It is further case of the Prosecution that on 15-08-2011, based on the information given by PW3, the PW6 came to
Koilkuntla P.S., along with PW5 and found 30 red sandal logs therein and took the seized case Property and TATA Sumo Vehicle into their custody and based on the same, the PW5 registered a Case against the Accused as in POR.No.79 of 2011-2012 and then she handed over the case bundle to PW6 to conduct further investigation in this case and then after completion of investigation, the Forest Range Officer,
Dhone, has laid Charge sheet against the A1 to A6.
[14.3] To substantiate the case of the Prosecution, it examined PW1 to PW6 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 got marked. The PW1 and
PW2 are the the Panch Witnesses for Ex.P3, the PW3 is the person who initially detected the Case, the PW4, who assisted PW3, PW5 and
PW6 are who received the Case Property from PW3 and registered the case against the Accused under the Forest laws.
15.Coming to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who said to have participated in the raid conducted by PW3 for detection of illegal
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 10 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
transportation of seized red sandal logs, they deposed in their evidence with one voice that they do not know the Accused and they do not know anything about the facts of case, and that they further deposed that at about 7-8 years back, at the request of PW4 they signed on some papers and that they do not knew the contents of
Panchanama, Dated 11.02.2011. But, they were identified their
Signatures therein Panchanama, and it were marked as Ex.P1 and
Ex.P2. They further deposed that they cannot identify the Case
Property. It shows that PW1 and PW2 did not testified in their evidnece iota of incriminating material against the Accused and that they turned hostile in favour of the Accused and even during their
Cross Examination, the Prosecution did not elicit any incriminating evidence against the Accused. Hence, it can be said that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is no way helpful to the case of the Prosecution and that their evidence cannot be taken into consideration.
16.Coming to the evidence of PW3 who detected the case firstly, he deposed in his Chief Examination itself that on 11.02.2011 he had seized the red sandal logs from the Accused and prepared
Ex.P3 in the presence of PW1 and PW2 and then he recorded the
Confession of Accused A1 to A3 and then registered the case against them and he further deposed that on 20.07.2011 he had transfered the case along with case Property to PW6 upon requisition, on point of jurisdiction, but where as PW6 deposed that in his chief itself that on 11.08.2011, he came along with PW5 to Koilkuntla Town on the instrusction of the Forest Range Officer, and found the red sandal logs in Koilkuntla Police Station, and when they weighed logs, they found that it is 509 kgs and the police personnel, in Police Station of
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 11 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
Koilkuntla, handed over the case bundle to PW5. But whereas, PW5 deposed in her evidence that on 15.08.2011, she came to P.S.,
Koilkuntla along with PW6 and found the logs and vehicle and that they handed over the case Property to PW6 and he given the same to her for safe custody and she further deposed that after registered the case against the Accused by her under Forest laws under Ex.P6, she handed over the Case Property to PW6. Hence, it can be said that in the evidence of PW3, PW5 and PW6, there are three different dates were came into picture in respect of handing over the Case Property i.e., 20.07.2011, 11.08.2011 and 15.08.2011 respectively which are contradicting to each other. But, the Prosecution did not explain about this under which circumstances, they deposed three different dates and that there is any amount of doubt created in the mind of
Court that on which exact date, PW5 and PW6 received the Case
Property from the PW3.
17.Coming to another aspect that though PW3 was deposed that he prepared Ex.P3 in the presence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and LW3 at the scene of offence, but he did not signed in it to show that he participated in the Panchanama. Moreover, with utter suprise, PW3 was acted as Sation House Officer in the Police Station, Koilkuntla to issue Ex.P4 under which he registered the Case against the Accused based on Ex.P3. For this aspect, he deposed in his Cross Examination that since he prepared Ex.P3, he acted as Station house officer to issue Ex.P4. But where as, PW4 who was the Station house officer in
P.S., Koilkuntla at relevant point of time, he admitted that as on the date of offence in this case, he was the Station House officer in PS,
Koilkuntla. Generally, in Rural areas wherein the Police Stations
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 12 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
located, above the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, will not act as
Station House officer for the concerned Police Station and in major cities and towns only the Inspector of Police used to act as Station
House Officer. But, herein PW3 who was the Inspector of Police for
Koilkuntla Circle, at relevant point of time, was acted as Staion House
Officer for Police Station, Koilkuntla, which not termed as town or city, to issue Ex.P4 though the PW4 who was the Sub-Inspector of Police for the same Police Station, for the same time, was available with him.
Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the procedure adopted by PW3 to issue is quite against law even though he has not signed in Ex.P3 to show his participation.
18.Coming to the evidence of PW5 who issued Ex.P6, she admitted in her evidence that she mentioned in Ex.P6 about the date of detection of case and offence date as 15.08.2011 and further mentioned in it that on 15.08.2011, PW3, PW4 detected the offence in this case on 15.08.2011 only. She further admitted that on 20.07.2011 she did not receive the Case Property from the PW3. Therefore, as discussed supra, there are contadictions elicited in the evidence of
PW3, PW5 and PW6 with regard to the date of receiving the Case
Property from the PW3.
19.Coming to the evidence of PW6, who said to have received the case Property from PW3, he himself deposed that he had not prepared any Panchanama for the weighing and measuments of seized red sandal logs. As discussed supra, he deposed a different dates on which he alleged to have received the seized Property from PW3 which is contra to the evidence of PW3 and PW5.
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 13 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
20.Coming to another aspect that though ample opportunities had given to the Prosecution for the evidence of LW3 and LW7 who alleged to be participated in Ex.P3 along with PW1 to PW4 and who conducted the further investigation and filed the Chargesheet against the Accused, but the Prosecution has failed to secure their presence to give their evidence and that this Court was closed their evidence and that LW3 and LW7 are remained non-examined.
21.Coming to another aspect about the custody of Case
Property, for this, PW3 deposed that on 11.02.2011 they seized the 30 red sandal logs and one TATA Sumo Vehicle No.AP04-X-8520 from the possession of Accused No.1 to 3 and then he further deposed that he handed over the Case bundle along with seized Case Property to PW6 on 20.07.2011 under requisition, but where as PW5 and PW6 are deposed that they received the Case Property on 15.08.2011 and 11.08.2011 as per their evidence. It means that till 20.07.2011 or 11.08.2011 or even 15.08.2011 the seized Case Property was with
PW3 only and he admitted the same in his testimony. It further means that nearly about more than six months, PW3 kept the seized Case
Property with him without reporting the same either to this court or forwarding the same to PW5 annd PW6 immediately after seizure of the same. Hence, it can be said that the custody of Case Property in this Case was compromised and for this, either PW3 or the
Prosecution did not assign any reasons under which circumstances,
PW3 kept the same with him without taking immediate necessary steps.
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 14 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
22.Coming to the confession given by A1 to A3 before, PW1 to PW4 and LW3 under Ex.P3, here PW1 and PW2 are independent
Panch Witnesses, PW3, PW4 and LW.3 are the Police Officers.
It is well settled law in E.C.RICHARDS Vs
FOREST RANGE OFFICER - 1957 (2) M.L.J.
624, wherein Hon’ble Madras High Court held that “the statements made to a Forest Officer stand on a different footing from those made to Police officers. As the Forest Officers are not conferred with powers of an officer in charge of a Police
Station they cannot by any means be considered
Police officers under the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 25 of the Evidence Act, cannot apply to them. Therefore, in the present Case, the Statement made by the Petitioner to the Forest Range Officer,
P.W.1, is admissible in the evidence and it is not disputed that if this Statement is admissible, the conviction is sustainable”.
23.InFOREST RANGE OFFICER Vs
ABOOBACKER AND ANOTHER-1989 CRI.L.J
2038, wherein Hon’ble Kerala High Court also expressed the view that the confession given by the
Accused before Forest Officer is admissible and it is not hit by Section 25 of the Indian evidence Act.
In the present Case, the A1 to A3 are alleged to be given their confession before PW1 to PW4 and LW3 [Sub Inspector of Police,
Uyyalawada P.S.,] under Ex.P3. It means the Confession given by the
Accused is comes under the purview of Extra-Judicial confession. It is the law, Extra-judicial confession alone cannot be relied, it needs support of other supporting evidence. So far as the confession of A1 to A3 is concerned, the same (if voluntary and
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 15 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
true) can undoubtedly be brought on record U/section 30 of the
Evidence Act, to use it also against A4 to A6, but then the question is what would be its evidentiary value against the latter. The question was succinctly answered by Hon’ble Apex
Court in KASHMIARA SINGH Vs STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH- AIR 1952 SC 159, as "The proper way to approach a
Case of this kind is, first, to marshal the evidence against the Accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But, Cases may arise where the judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event the judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept”.
24.In an another Case between SAHOO Vs
UTTAR PRADESH- AIR 1966 SC 40, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that a confession is a direct piece of evidence, but before such evidence can be accepted, it must be established by cogent evidence what were the exact words used by the Accused and even if the confession was established, prudence and justice demand that such evidence should not be used as the sole ground of conviction and it may be used as a corroborative piece of evidence.
25.From the above Principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex
Court, it can be understood that though there are Confessional
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 16 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
Statements of the Accused before this Court, but, this Court has to examine other circumstances, and after that only has to see the
Confessional Statements of the Accused. In this Case, the Police
Official i.e., PW3, PW4 and LW3 [Sub Inspector of Police Uyyalawada
P.S] had seized 30 Red Sandal Logs at the scene of offece based on the
Confessional Statements of A1 to A3. It means that the recovery of 30 red sandal logs, is comes under the purview of Section 27 of Indain
Evidence Act. Hence, it can be assume that the Confession of A1 to
A3 recorded at the scene of offence and in the presence of PW3, PW4 and LW3 [Sub Inspector of Police, Uyyalawada P.S.] who are Police
Officials.
Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act is a bar to the Confession made by the Accused while in custody of Police. The phrase “custody of a Police Officer” used in the
Section 26 of the Evidence Act, is not a mere physical custody. This court is of opinion that there must be two things in order to constitute custody of a Police
Officer as mentioned in Section 26 of the
Evidence Act. Firstly, there must be some control upon the movement of the person who about to give Confessional Statement, he may not be at liberty to go any way as he likes. Secondly, such control must be imposed by some Police Officer directly or indirectly.”
26.But as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, if the
Confession of the Accused is supported by the discovery of a fact then it may be presumed to be true and not to have been extracted.
InSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs
DEOMAN UPADHYAYA - AIR 1960 SC 1125,
a five judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that :- “ Section 27 is founded
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 17 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
on the principle that even though the evidence relating to confessional or other statements made by a person, whilst he is in the custody of a Police Officer, is tainted and therefore inadmissible, if the truth of the information given by him is assured by the discovery of a fact, it may be presumed to be untainted and is therefore declared provable in so far as it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered”.
27. In the present Case on hand, the Prosecution relied on
Extra-judicial confession of A1 to A3 which recorded before the PW1 to PW4 and LW3 [Sub Inspector of Police, Uyyalawada P.S.] who are independent Panch Witnesses and Police officers, consequences of it, they seized 30 Red Sandal Logs.
“ It is well settled law, the evidence of extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. The extra-judicial confession must be received with great care and caution. It can be relied upon only when it is clear, consistent and convincing. This court has to decide whether the person
before whom the admission is said to have
been made are trustworthy Witnesses.”
28.Coming to another aspect i.e., production of seized Case
Property before this Court, the Prosecution did not produce the seized
Case Property i.e., 30 red sandal logs and one TATA Sumo Vehicle
No.AP04-X-8520, before this Court. Even PW5 or PW6 who said have received the same from PW3, they also has not produced before this
Court. Even the seizure of said Case Property not reported to this court either by PW3, or PW5 or PW6 or LW.7.
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 18 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
29.In PAWAN KUMAR Vs STATE OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH - 2019 (4) SCC 182,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Non- production of the seized wood and the vehicle, the primary evidence of the offence, renders the
Prosecution Case fragile and unsustainable. Mere production of the seizure memo does not tant amount to the production of the seized woods and the lorry. Unless the seized wood was produced, mere production of a sample, and there is no material in support that the sample was out of the same 22 logs, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellants”.
30.Based on the above discussion and above judgments, this
Court safely can say that the Prosecution failed to establish their Case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Prosecution is failed to prove the guilty of the Accused beyond all reasonsble doubt for the alleged offences, and as such, the Accused are entitled for acquittal.
Hence, the Point is determined.
31. In the result, the Accused Nos.3 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 29 [ii] [4] [a] [i] of A.P. Forest Act, 1967, under Section 379 R/w 34 of IPC and thereby, they are acquired for the same under section 248 [1] of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the above Accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked
Case Property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of the Appeal time. The Case against the A1, the A2 and the A6 is abated since they
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 19 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
were died]. No Order is passed in respect of the Case Property since the Case Property was not produced before this Court.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III directly on
Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this
the 16 th day of March 2020.
Sd/- P.Babu
Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Koilkuntla.
Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined
For the Prosecution For the Defence
PW1: M.Venkata Reddy. None.
PW2: V.Ramaiah.
PW3: B.Murali [Inspector of Police]
PW4: V.P.Subbarayudu [Sub Inspector of Police]
PW5: R.Renuka [Forest Beat officer]
PW6: P.Kathal [Deputy Range Officer]
Exhibits Marked
For the Prosecution For the Defence
Ex.P1 : Signature of the PW1 on the Panchanama. – Nil -
Ex.P2 : Signature of the PW2 on the Panchanama.
Ex.P3 : Panchanama, Dt.11-02-2011.
Ex.P4 : First Information Report.
Ex.P5 : Signature of the PW4 in Ex.P3.
Ex.P6 : P.O.R. No.22 of 2011 [Primary Offence Report].
Sd/- P.Babu
J.M.F.C., KKL.
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 20 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST
CLASS ::KOILAKUNTLA ::
Calendar Case No.44 of 2012
1.Date of offence: 11-02-2011
2.Date of report: 11-02-2011
3.Date of filing: 17-11-2011
4.Date of apprehension of the Accused: 21-08-2019
5.Date of commencement of trial: 11-09-2019
6.Date of completion of trial: 11-12-2019
7.Date of Judgment: 16-03-2020
8.Complainant: State represented by the Forset Range Officer, Dhone. (FOR No.79/2011-2012) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.No Name of the Accused Father’s Name Age Calling Religion Residence -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kantamaneni Raghavendra, Son of Venkata Rao, Aged 30 years, Resident of Koilakuntla Town. [A1 abated since he died]
2. Dasari Anuragam,Son of Brahmaiah, Aged 22 years,
Bhakarapuram of Pulivendula Town, Kadapa District, Driver of
TATA Sumo bearing No.AP04-X-8520.[A2 abated since he died]
3. Dasari Chandra Mohan, Son of Venkata Keshava, Aged 20 years, Resident of Rajareddy Colony, Pulivendula, Kadapa District.
4. R.Madhava Reddy, Son of Chinna Narasimha Reddy, Resident of
Revanur Village, Koilakuntla Mandal, Kurnool District.
5. S.Nageswara Reddy @ Sarveswara Reddy, Son of S.Venkata
Subba Reddy, Resident of Kalugotla Village, Koilakuntla Mandal.
6. Mandla Venkata Sunil, Son of Venkata Ramana, Aged 20 years, Kothapeta Village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District.
[A6 abated since he died] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offence : Illegal transportation of Red Sandal Logs; Theft.
U/ Sections : 29 [ii] [4] [a] [i] of A.P. Forest Act, 1967, Sec 379 R/w 34 of IPC
Finding : The A3 to A5 are found not guilty.
CC. No.44 of 2012 - 21 - JMFC,Court, KKL.
O R D E R : The Accused Nos.3 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 29 [ii] [4] [a] [i] of A.P. Forest Act, 1967, under Section 379 R/w 34 of IPC and thereby, they are acquired for the same under section 248 [1] of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the above Accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked Case Property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of the Appeal time. The Case against the A1, the A2 and the
A6 is abated since they were died]. No Order is passed in respect of the
Case Property since the Case Property was not produced before this
Court.
Sd/- P.Babu
Judl. Magistrate of the First Class,
Koilakuntla.
Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
// True Copy //
Judl.Magistrate of the First Class, Koilakuntla.