- 1 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 29

TH

DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100011 OF 2018 (C)

BETWEEN:

1. ARJUN TUKKAPPA LAMANI

AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: MASON,

R/O: AGADI VILLAGE,

TQ: MUNDGODD, DIST: KARWAR.

2. PARASHURAM LALAPPA LAMANI

AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

R/O: AGADI VILLAGE,

TQ: MUNDGODD, DIST: KARWAR.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD,

THROUGH KALAGHATAGI POLICE.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374

(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SECURE THE RECORDS OF TH E

CASE BEARING SESSIONS CASE NO.74 OF 2017 FROM PRL.

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND TO ALLOW

THE APPEAL AND INTURN SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF

CONVICTION AND ORDER SENTENCE DATED 29.11.2017

PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.74 OF 2017, BY PRL. DIST RICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND TO ACQUIT THE

- 2 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

APPELLANTS/ACCUSED PERSONS FROM THE ALLEGED

OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION S

86 AND 87 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963 AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 17.07.2026 AND COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED

THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/accused

under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Proced ure,

1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), challenging the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2017 passed

by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in

S.C. No.74/2017. Where by the accused have been

convicted for the offences p/u/s 379 Code of Civil

Procedure and under sections 86 and 87 of KF Act.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as

under:

The PSI of Kalaghatagi Police Station lodged a

complaint alleging that on 04.07.2016, at about 10. 00

- 3 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

a.m., while he was in the Police Station, he receiv ed

credible information over the telephone from an unknown

person stating that at Bammigatti Cross, one person was

carrying a handbag containing sandalwood billets an d

another person was accompanying him.

3. Immediately after receiving the information, the

complainant secured panch witnesses and, along with his

staff and the panch witnesses, proceeded to Bammigat ti

Cross. On reaching the spot, they noticed two perso ns,

one of whom was carrying a handbag. On enquiry, the y

disclosed their names as Arjun Tukkappa Lamani and

Parashuram Lalappa Lamani, who are accused Nos.1 an d 2

herein.

4. On inspection of the handbag, it was found to

contain sandalwood billets. On enquiry, the accused

allegedly disclosed that they had committed theft of the

sandalwood billets near Bedti Halla Bridge within the limits

of Balavantar Village and were transporting the same to

- 4 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

Hubballi for the purpose of sale. They were not in

possession of any pass or permit authorising

transportation of the sandalwood billets.

5. After completing all the formalities, namely,

weighing the billets, drawing the seizure mahazar a nd

seizing the sandalwood billets, the accused were arrested

and after completion of the investigation, the Investigating

Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused for the

offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal

Code (for short, "IPC") and Sections 86 and 87 of t he

Karnataka Forest Act (for short, "the K.F. Act").

6. The learned Sessions Judge, after complying

with Section 207 Cr.P.C. and hearing both sides, framed

charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesa id

offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the

prosecution examined seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7,

marked Exs.P1 to P6 and produced Material Object No.1.

- 5 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the

statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 were recorded und er

Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminati ng

circumstances appearing against them in the evidenc e of

the prosecution witnesses and denied their complicity in

the alleged offences. However, they did not choose to

adduce any defence evidence.

9. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary

evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted accu sed

Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 86

and 87 of the KF Act and Section 379 of the IPC and

sentenced them as under:

“Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to

undergo SI for a period of three years and pay fine of

Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence U/s 86 of Karnataka

Forest Act, in default to pay fine to undergo SI for 2

months.

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are further sentenced to

undergo SI for a period of five years and pay fine of

Rs.50,000/- each for the offence U/s 87 of Karnataka

- 6 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

Forest Act in default to pay fine to undergo SI for 4

months.

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are further sentenced to

undergo SI for a period of 1 year and pay fine of

Rs.1000/- each for the offence U/s 379 I.P.C., in

default to pay fine to undergo SI for 1 month.

All the sentences of imprisonment shall run

concurrently.”

10. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, accused Nos.1 and 2

have preferred the present appeal on the following

grounds:

a. They are innocent and have not committed any

offence. The evidence on record does not disclose

any reliable or acceptable material to establish the

charges levelled against them. The findings

recorded by the trial Court that the prosecution

has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt are legally unsustainable.

b.

The trial Court has erred in placing reliance upon

the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, whose

evidence is contradictory and insufficient to

establish the guilt of the accused beyond

- 7 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

reasonable doubt. That there are material

contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-6.

According to PW-6, after receiving the

information, they reached the spot at about 10.00

a.m. However, PW-1, who accompanied PW-6,

has stated that when they reached the spot, the

accused had just alighted from a bus. Thus, there

is a material contradiction which has not been

appreciated by the trial Court.

c.

According to the prosecution, nineteen

sandalwood billets were seized from the

possession of the accused. However, all the billets

were not produced before the Court.

d.

The officer who issued the certificate certifying

that the seized billets were sandalwood billets had

not undergone the training prescribed under

Section 62C of the Karnataka Forest Act. Further,

there is no evidence to establish from where the

accused had allegedly cut or removed the

sandalwood tree or any part thereof.

e.

There are several contradictions in the

prosecution evidence, and the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses does not corroborate

each other. Despite the same, the trial Court

has erroneously convicted the accused.

- 8 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties. Perused the judgment of conviction, the order of

sentence and the original records.

12. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and

on perusal of the entire evidence on record, the following

points arise for consideration:

a. Whether the trial Court is justified in

convicting the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the

Karnataka Forest Act and Section 379 of the

IPC?

b.

Whether the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence suffer from

any illegality and perversity warranting

interference by this Court?

13. The principal contention advanced by the

learned counsel for the appellants is that the conviction is

founded solely on the opinion of PW-4, who was serving as

the Range Forest Officer. According to PW-4, on

22.07.2016, the Kalaghatagi Police produced ninetee n

billets before him. He examined the billets based on their

- 9 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

smell and physical appearance and opined that they were

sandalwood billets. Accordingly, he issued the certificate

marked as Ex.P3.

14. It is the contention of the appellants that PW-4

was not an authorised officer competent to issue th e

certificate under Section 62C of the Karnataka Forest Act.

It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce

any notification issued by the State Government

authorising PW-4 to exercise the powers conferred u nder

Section 62C of the Karnataka Forest Act. Section 62 C of

the Karnataka Forest Act reads as follows:

Section 62C. Certificate of Forest Officer to

be an evidence.- Any document purporting to be a

certificate under the hand of a Forest Officer not below

the rank of a Range Forest Officer who has undergone

training in the examination of forest produce and who

is so authorised by the State Government in this

behalf in respect of forest produce, submitted to him

for examination and report, may be used as evidence

of the facts stated in such certificate in any

proceedings under this Act, but the court may, if it

things fit, and shall on the application of the

- 10 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

prosecution or the accused person summon and

examine any such Forest Officer as to the subject

matter of his certificate.”

15. In support of the said contention, the learned

counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on t he

decision of this Court in Raghavendra Acharya v. State

of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2010 KAR 3382 .

16. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW-4, it is

evident that he was serving as the Range Forest Off icer.

However, the prosecution has not produced any

notification issued by the State Government to esta blish

that, during the relevant period, PW-4 was authorised to

exercise the powers conferred under Section 62C of the

Karnataka Forest Act.

17. It is true that PW-4 was not cross-examined by

the defence. Nevertheless, when the statute specifi cally

requires that the opinion be rendered by an officer duly

authorised under Section 62C of the Karnataka Forest Act,

the burden lies upon the prosecution to establish s uch

- 11 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

authorisation by producing the relevant Government

notification. In the absence of such evidence, Ex.P3 cannot

be treated as a certificate issued by a competent

authority.

18. The second contention urged by the learned

counsel for the appellants pertains to the contradictions in

the prosecution evidence. PW-1, who accompanied the

complainant, has deposed that when they reached the

spot, the accused were alighting from a bus while carrying

a bag. On the other hand, PW-6, the complainant, ha s

stated that when they reached the spot, the accused were

already standing there holding the bag. This contradiction

assumes significance, as it relates to the very manner in

which the accused were apprehended.

19. Further, according to PW-4, nineteen

sandalwood billets were produced before him for

examination. However, none of the material witnesse s,

namely, PWs.1, 2, 5, and 6, have specifically deposed to

the exact number of sandalwood billets allegedly

- 12 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

recovered from the possession of the accused. This

omission also creates a doubt regarding the prosecu tion

case.

20. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon

following judgments:

a. Santosh S/o Annappa Lamani v. State

of Karnataka , Criminal Appeal No.

2831/2009, disposed of on 14.07.2017.

b. State of Karnataka v. Mahamed Rafiq

and Another , Criminal Appeal Nos.

535/2014 and 370/2014, disposed of on

07.01.2026.

c. State of Karnataka v. Prakash and

Others, Criminal Appeal No. 466/2012.

d. State of Karnataka v. Venkatesha @ Jiya

S/o Jiya, Criminal Appeal No. 236/2009,

disposed of on 12.02.2014.

- 13 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

21. Having carefully re-appreciated the entire

evidence on record, this Court finds considerable force in

the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. The

prosecution has failed to establish that PW-4 was d uly

authorised under Section 62C of the Karnataka Fores t Act

to certify that the seized billets were sandalwood. Further,

there are material contradictions in the prosecutio n

evidence regarding the manner in which the accused were

apprehended and the alleged seizure of the sandalwo od

billets.

22. Further, the prosecution has not produced any

evidence to establish from where or from which place the

accused had allegedly cut the sandalwood trees and

brought the billets. There is absolutely no evidence in this

regard. The Investigating Officer ought to have

interrogated the accused and conducted a thorough

investigation to ascertain the place from which the

sandalwood billets had allegedly been procured. If, as

deposed by the complainant, the accused had already

- 14 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

been apprehended while in possession of the billets, the

Investigating Officer was expected to investigate a nd

ascertain the place from which the trees had been cut and

the billets removed. The failure to conduct such an

investigation creates a serious doubt regarding the

prosecution case and the manner in which the accuse d

were allegedly apprehended.

23. It is a settled principle of criminal

jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove the guilt of

the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Where two views

are possible on the evidence and the material on re cord

gives rise to a reasonable doubt, the benefit of such doubt

must necessarily be extended to the accused.

24. The learned Sessions Judge, without properly

appreciating these material aspects of the evidence, has

erroneously recorded a finding of guilt against the

accused. Consequently, the findings recorded by the trial

Court cannot be sustained in law.

- 15 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

25. Accordingly, both the points for consideration

are answered in the negative, holding that the trial Court

was not justified in convicting the accused and that the

impugned judgment and order of conviction call for

interference by this Court.

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed.

ii. The judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 29.11.2017 passed by the

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Dharwad, in S.C. No.74/2017 are hereby

set aside.

iii. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the

offences punishable under Section 379 of

the Indian Penal Code and Sections 86 and

87 of the Karnataka Forest Act.

iv. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the

accused shall stand cancelled.

- 16 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC020050532018

NC: 2026:KHC-D:10888

CRL.A No. 100011 of 2018

v. The fine amount, if deposited, shall be

refunded to the accused after the expiry of

the appeal period, in accordance with law.

vi. Material Objects shall be dealt with in

accordance with law after the appeal period

is over.

Sd/-

(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)

JUDGE

AC

Ct-cmu

list no.: 1 sl no.: 30