- 1 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 07

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.535 OF 2014

c/w

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.370 OF 2014

IN CRL.A. NO.535/2014

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY HONNALI POLICE - 577217.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

AND:

1. MAHAMED RAFIQ

S/O BUDEN SAB,

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

R/O CHEELAPURA VILLAGE,

HONNALI TALUK - 577217.

2. SADDAM @ SADDU

S/O KANDANA KAVI KHASIM SAB,

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

R/O SASVEHALLI-NALUR ROAD,

CHEELAPURA VILLAGE,

HONNALI TALUK - 577217.

3. DADAPEER

S/O KHASIMSAB,

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

CHEELAPURA VILLAGE,

HONNALI TALUK-577217.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADV. FOR R1 TO R3.)

- 2 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.377 CR.P.C BY THE STATE

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO

MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND

SENTENCE DATED:4.3.14 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND

S.J., DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.100/2013 - AND IMPOSEING

INADEQUATE SENTENCE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO

3/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 86 AND 87 OF THE

KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND SEC. 379 R/W 34 OF IPC & E TC.

IN CRL.A. NO.370/2014

BETWEEN:

1. MAHAMED RAFIQ

S/O BUDEN SAB,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

R/AT CHEELAPURA VILLAGE,

HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

PIN CODE NO.571450

2. SADDAM @ SADDU

S/O KADANA KAVI KKASIM SAB

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

SASVERHALLI LNALUR ROAD,

CHEELAPURA VILLAGE,

HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

PIN CODE NO: 571 450

3. DADAPEER

S/O KHASIMSAB

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

CHEELAPURA VILLAGE,

HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

PIN CODE NO: 571 450

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI RAJU C. N., ADV.)

AND:

STATE BY HONNALI POLICE

DAVANAGERE

REPRESENTED BY SPP,

- 3 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

BANGALORE

PIN CODE: 560 001

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV.

FOR THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 4.3.2014

PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., DAVANAGERE I N

S.C.NO.100/2013 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED

FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 86 AND 87 OF K.F.ACT AND SEC. 379

R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR

"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CAV JUDGMENT

Both these appeals arise out of the judgment, 04

th

March

2014, passed in SC No.100 of 2013 by the II Additional District

and Sessions Judge at Davanagere (for short “the trial Court”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred to as per their rank and status before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that Honnali

Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused for offence

punishable under sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Fo rest Act

and section 379 of Indian Penal Code. It is allege d by the

- 4 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

prosecution that on 3

rd

July 2012 at about 5.00 pm, upon

receiving credible information about theft of Sandalwood in the

land of one Nagalur Mahadevappa of Tharaganahalli, the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Honnali Police Station, along with the staff,

and panchas rushed to the Spot and found accused 12 3

engaged in cutting sandalwood blocks into small pie ces and

filling the same into a bag illegally and without any permit or

license from the forest authorities with ulterior m otive for

wrongful gains by selling the same and thereby comm itted

offence punishable under sections 86 and 87 of Karn ataka

Forest Act read with section 379 of Indian Penal Co de.

After filing charge-sheet, case was registered in CC No.267 of

2013. Thereafter, it was committed to the court of sessions

which was registered as SC No.100 of 2013. The accused were

enlarged on bail. Upon hearing on charges, charges were

framed. The same were read over and explained to t he

accused in the language known to them. Accused had pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all has

examined five witnesses as PWs1 to 5 and marked fiv e

documents as per Exhibit P1 to P5 and six material objects

were marked as MOs1 to 6. On closure of prosecutio n side

- 5 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 of Code

of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have to tally

denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but h ave not

chosen to lead any defence evidence. After hearing on both

sides, the trial court has convicted the accused 1 to 3 for

commission of offence punishable under sections 86 and 87 of

Karnataka Forest Act and section 379 read with sect ion 34 of

Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 1 year 6 months and to pay fine of

₹1,500/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple

imprisonment for period of five months. Being aggrieved by the

impugned judgment of conviction and order on senten ce,

appellants-accused have preferred Criminal Appeal N o.370 of

2013. Being not satisfied with the imposition of s entence,

State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.535 of 2014 seeking

imposition of maximum sentence.

4. Sri Raju C.N., learned Counsel appearing for the

Appellants/accused would submit that the trial cour t has

committed and error in convicting the applicants fo r the

aforesaid offences only on the basis evidence of of ficial

witnesses. He would submit that the respondent pol ice have

not examined the owner of the land and have also no t

- 6 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

produced the RTC extract of the land to prove the fact that in

which land the respondent recovered the sandalwood pieces

from the accused. He would submit that the mahazar was

prepared at the police station and they have been f alsely

implicated in this case. Except PW1 and PW4, all ar e official

witnesses. According to the case of the prosecutio n, at the

time of the incident, several persons were gathered , but the

prosecution has not examined the independent witnes s to

prove the guilt of the appellants/accused. It is fu rther

submitted that though the investigating officer received the

information on 3

rd

July 2012, he has not registered the case

and has not entered the same in the general diary. Without

registration of the case, the investigating officer has visited the

spot and conducted seizure Panchama on 3

rd

July 2012

between 6.00 and 7.00 pm and seized 4 kgs of sandal wood

pieces and another sandalwood pieces weighing 5 kgs , in total

9 kgs worth of ₹16,000/-. It is submitted that the investigating

officer arrested the accused on spot and took them to Police

Station and registered the case in Crime No.165 of 2012

against accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable u nder

sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act read wit h Section

379 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the First

- 7 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

Information Report was submitted to the court on 4

th

July 2012

at 2:45 pm. The Investigating officer has not complied with the

mandatory provisions of section 62C of the Karnata ka Forest

Act. The investigating officer has not produced the certificate

issued by the concerned Forest Officer. In the case on hand,

Exhibit P2 is the certificate issued by the Range Forest Officer

who is examined as PW2. PW2 has not whispered anyt hing as

to whether he has undergone training in the examina tion of

Forest produce or has been issued with any certificate to show

that Range Forest Officer has undergone training in

examination of forest produce and he is authorised by the State

Government in this behalf in respect of Forest prod uce

submitted to him for exam examination and report ma y be

used as evidence of the fact stated in the certificate, in the

court proceedings. During the course of cross-examination of

PW2, he has admitted that he has obtained the certi ficate in

this regard, but has not produced the same before the court.

The learned counsel would further submit that the s pot

mahazar is conducted before the registration of case and hence

the same is not sustainable. The seizure mahazar w as

conducted on 3

rd

July 2012 between 6.00 and 7.00 pm and the

same is submitted the court along with first information report

- 8 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

on 4

th

July 2012. The investigating officer has not reported the

seizure of properties to the higher officer as required under

section 71A of the Karnataka Forest Act. It is further submitted

that PW4-Shivakumar son of Nagalur Mahadevappa has

deposed in his evidence that the land in survey No. 70-1 of

Tharaganahalli belongs to him which came from his father, and

he has deposed that there were four sandalwood tree s and

further deposed that when he was at Honnali, somebo dy has

committed theft of two sandalwood trees which he ca me to

know only on the next day. Further, he would submit that the

complainant is a public servant and he has suo-motu registered

the case and investigation was conducted by the ver y same

police official who had lodged the complaint. Therefore, in the

absence of independent corroborative evidence, no c onviction

can be recorded in such a case. On all these groun ds, it is

short for allowing the appeal. In support of his submissions, he

has relied on the following decisions:

1. BHANUPRAKASH AND ANOTHER v. STATE BY

A.C.F. rendered in Crl.R.P.No.604 of 2004

decided on 14.07.2006;

- 9 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

2. SMT. ADURI AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF

KARNATAKA rendered in Crl.A. No.100123 of

2020 decided on 02.02.2021;

3. XAVIER v. STATE OF KERALA rendered in

Crl.M.C.No.117 of 1997 decided on 27.03.1998;

4. MUKHTIAR AHMED ANSHARI v. STATE (NCT OF

DELHI) rendered in Crl.A. No.325 of 2003

decided on 21.04.2005.

5. Sri B Lakshman, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State in Criminal Appeal No.535 of

2014, submits that the trial court has erred in imp osing the

sentence only for 1 year 6 months for the offence p unishable

and sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act. The

learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider section 6 of the

Karnataka Forest Act, which states that in case of forest

offence, having reference the cutting, approving or removal or

damage to a sandalwood tree or any part of sandalwo od tree

belonging to the Government, be punishable with imprisonment

for a term which may extend to 10 years and with fi ne which

may extend to ₹1,00,000/-. Further, he submits that similarly,

the section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act also mandates that

in contravention of provisions of sub-section (1) of section 87,

the punishment prescribed for imprisonment for a te rm which

- 10 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

may extend to 10 years and with fine which may exte nd to

₹1,00,000/-. The learned High Court Government Ple ader,

further submits that the trial court has failed to appreciate the

same while imposing the sentence, though the trial Court has

recorded a categorical finding that all the accused , in

furtherance of common intention, without having any permit or

license from the Forest Department, have cut down t wo

sandalwood trees standing in the land of Nagalur Mahadevappa

of Tharagananahalli and thereby committed the afore stated

offences. When once the guilt of theft of cutting sandalwood

trees is proved, the learned Sessions Judge has no option but

to convict accused by imposing maximum sentence for the

aforesaid offences. Hence, it is prayed for imposing maximum

sentence to the accused.

6. Having heard the arguments on both sides and

perusal of materials, the following points would arise for my

consideration:

1. Whether the trial court is justified in convicting

the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act read

- 11 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

with section 379 read with section 34 of Indian

Penal Code?

2. Whether the Appellant-State has made out a

ground for enhancement of sentence?

3. What Order?

Regarding Point No.1:

7. I have examined the materials placed before the

court. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has

examined 5 witnesses as PWs 1 to 5 and marked five

documents as Exhibit P1 to P5 and five material objects as MOs

1 to 6.

8. PW1- A.C. Mallikarjuna has deposed in his evidence

that about 1 year 4 months back, Police have summon ed him

and Rajappa to the Police Station. Accordingly, they went to

the police station. Police took them to the land of Nagalur

Mahadevappa, where Sandalwood trees were being cut. There

were three persons who were in possession of saw, a xe,

chopper and one bag. They seized the sandalwood bi llets as

per mahazar Exhibit P1.

- 12 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

9. PW2, Devraj Kallappa, Range Forest Officer, Honnali

has deposed that on 8

th

August 2012, he received material

objects MOs1 to 3-sandalwood pieces from Sub-Inspec tor of

Police, Honnali and on examination, he asserted the same as

Sandalwood and issued certificate as per Exhibit P2.

10. PW3-Rajashekar Police Constable, Honnali Police

Station, who is said to be one of the raiding party, has stated

that on 3

rd

July 2012, when he was in Police Station, PSI has

received information at about 5.00 pm, then Head Co nstables

204, 149, Police Constables 94 and 731 and APC 146 along

with Police Sub-Inspector, went in a government jee p to the

land of Nagalur Mahadevappa at Tharaganahalli and b y that

time accused were cutting sandalwood pieces; they w ere

apprehended and were enquired as to their address a nd seized

9 kgs of sandalwood billets, 4 sandalwood pieces, a saw, an

axe and a bike bearing Registration.No.KA-27/Q-6513 under

mahazar.

11. PW4-Shivakumar is the son of Nagalur

Mahadevappa, claims to the owner of the land in Survey No.70-

1 of Tharaganahalli, has deposed in his evidence that he had

grown Coconut trees and sandalwood trees in his land. He has

- 13 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

also stated that on 3

rd

July 2012 somebody has cut two

sandalwood trees in his land which he came to know only on

the next day after he returned from Honnali and he has

identified MOs1 and 2.

12. PW5-B.G. Kumaraswamy, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Honnali Police Station has deposed as to the invest igation

conducted by him.

13. On perusal of materials placed before the Court, it

makes clear that the accused were cutting the sandalwood tree

standing in the land bearing survey No.70-1 of Tharaganahalli,

which belongs to Nagalur Mahadevappa. The said Nag alur

Mahadevappa has not been examined by the prosecutio n.

Nagalur Mahadevappa has not lodged any complaint wi th the

police as to the theft of sandalwood trees. Whether Nagalur

Mahadevappa is alive or not has also not been place d by the

prosecution. The prosecution has produced the RTC extract

Exhibit P3, which reveals that the land in survey No.70-1 stand

in the name of one Sri N.M. Shivakumar, son of Naga lur

Mahadevappa and in the cultivators column, the name of Smt.

Palakshama is shown. Though the land standing in the name of

N.M. Shivakumar, the investigating officer has not shown the

- 14 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

name of Shivakumar in the charge-sheet. Additionally, the RTC

extract does not reveal as to the existence of sandalwood trees

in the said land. Whereas the RTC reveals that the re are 50

mango trees. Though there is no reference as to the sandal

trees in the land, the investigating officer has not explained

anything as to why the existence of two sandalwood trees are

not shown in the RTC. Even in the complaint Exhibit P4 which

is suo-motu registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Honnali

Police Station does not disclose the survey number and name

of the owner of the land. When the prosecution has failed to

prove the existence of two sandalwood trees in the land in

survey No.70-1 of Tharaganahalli, the question of commission

of theft of sandalwood tree by the accused, does no t arise.

Exhibit P1-seizure mahazar reveals that on 3

rd

July 2012, Police

have conducted mahazar in presence of Sri A.C. Mall ikarjuna

and T Rajappa, in the said mahazar, the survey number of land

is not disclosed. One of the Panch witnesses A.C. Mallikarjuna

examined as PW1. He has not deposed anything again st this

accused in his examination-in-chief. During the co urse of

cross-examination, he has stated that when they wen t to the

spot, there were three persons who flicked the spot. One of the

accused was apprehended. The investigating officer has not

- 15 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

disclosed the names of the two person who flirt the spot.

Though the investigating officer has seized the san dalwood

billets under mahazar-Exhibit P1, he has not mentio ned the

crime number in this mahazar. Only after seizure mahazar, the

Inspector of Police has suo-motu registered the case in crime

No.155 of 2012 and submitted first information repo rt to the

court on 4

th

July 2012 at 2:45 pm as per Exhibit P5. Though

these properties are seized on 3

rd

July 2012 between 6.00 and

7.00 pm, First Information Report was not submitted to the

court on the very same day and it was sent only on the next

day at 2:30 pm. The delay in submitting the First Information

Report has not been explained by the prosecution. Though the

investigating officer has seized the sandalwood billets on 3

rd

July 2012, he has reported the seizure of the property to the

Court on 4

th

July 2012 which is also reflected in PF No.119 of

2012. Accordingly, Investigating Officer has failed to comply

with the mandatory provisions of section 102 of Cod e of

Criminal Procedure. The delay in submitting seizure report to

the jurisdictional Magistrate will create doubt as to the seizure

of the property.

14. Further, according to the prosecution, the Sub-

Inspector of Police has seized one Bajaj XCD motorbike bearing

- 16 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

registration No.KA-27/Q-6513 having Chassis

No.MD2SJBZZPWJ48286 and engine No.JAMBPJ48773, wort h

₹40,000/-. But the investigating officer has not produced the

RC book or 'B' extract of the motorbike to show its ownership.

During the course of cross-examination of PW5, Poli ce Sub-

Inspector B.G. Kumarswamy has clearly admitted that he has

not enquired as to who was the owner of the motorbi ke. Even

he has not collected the report from IMV. The reasons for non-

production of RC book or its 'B' extract has not been disclosed

by the prosecution.

15. Furthermore, the investigating officer has not

complied with the mandatory provisions of section 6 2(3) of

Chapter IX of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. After seizure of the

property, the investigating officer has not intimated the same

to the concerned officer under section 71A of the K arnataka

Forest Act. The investigating officer has also failed to submit

the report soon after the seizure of the property as required

under Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure and also

section 62 of Karnataka Forest Act which is admitte d by the

PW5. Investigating officer has not mentioned the Crime number

in the seizure mahazar. Viewed from any angle, I do not find

any cogent, convincing or corroborative legal evidence to prove

- 17 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

the guilt of the accused. Evidence placed before the court is

not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused have

committed the commission of alleged offence. Accordingly, the

prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable

doubt that the accused have committed the offence p unishable

under Sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act re ad with

Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, I answer point No.1

in the negative.

Regarding Point No.2:

16. While answering Point No.1 this Court has held that

the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, question of enhancing the

sentence does not arise. Accordingly, I answer Poi nt No.2 in

the negative.

Regarding Point No.3:

17. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, I

proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

i) Criminal Appeal No.535 of 2014 preferred by

the State is dismissed;

- 18 -

CRL.A No.535 of 2014

c/w CRL.A No.370 of 2014

ii) Criminal Appeal No.370 of 2014 preferred by

appellants/accused is allowed;

iii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence

dated 04

th

March 2014, passed in SC No.100 of

2013 by the II Additional District and Sessions

Judge at Davanagere is set aside;

iv) Appellants/accused are acquitted of the offences

under Section 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest

Act read with Section 379 read with Section 34

of Indian Penal Code;

v) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the

appellants/accused shall be returned to them in

accordance with relevant Act and Rules;

vi) Registry to send the copy of this judgment

along with trial court records to the concerned

Court.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA)

JUDGE

lnn