- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49839 CRL.A No. 737 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.737 OF 2021 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXTENSION POLICE, CHITRADURGA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU-560001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP) AND: 1. JAGADISHA S/O DODDA PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, CHIKKAREVU VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201. 2. RENUKUMAR S/O CHIKKE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DRIVER AND OWNER OF Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49839 CRL.A No. 737 of 2021 TATA ACE BEARING NO.13/A-2476, R/O HEGGATTA VILLAGE, GANDSI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. UMESH.P.B., ADV. FOR SRI. R.B.DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(1)(3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 09.03.2020 PASSED IN S.C.NO.77/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 86, 87 OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND EC.379 OF IPC AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49839 CRL.A No. 737 of 2021 JUDGMENT The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C.No.77/2018 dated 09.03.2020. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Police Sub-Inspector, Extension police station, Chitradurga filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Section 379 of IPC. 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 30.06.2017 at about 05.30 p.m., when CW.1-K.S.Shyamasundar Prasad, P.S.I. and his staff were patrolling near Naveen Lodge on service road, NH-4, Chitradurga, at that time, a Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.KA-13/A-2476 came towards Chitradurga from Hiriyuru side. After seeing CW.1 and his staff, the driver of the vehicle started driving the vehicle speedily. After suspecting, they succeeded to stop it and on enquiry, they - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49839 CRL.A No. 737 of 2021 found sandalwood billets. After apprehending the accused, they were interrogated and it was revealed that three months prior to transportation, they cut and removed sandalwood trees in forest area situated near Gandasi Village, Channarayapattanna Taluk, Hassan District and stocked it in their house. Later, when they were transporting the same for sale, they were apprehended in the presence of panchas. CW1 counted the billets and found that the same were weighing 135 kgs. The accused cut and removed the sandalwood trees at Kurikaval Forest area of Gandasi Village and were transporting without having any valid license or permit. Accordingly, he recovered it, arrested accused Nos.1 and 2, brought them to the police station and handed over the panchanama, report, property and the accused 1 and 2 to the S.H.O., who after receipt of report from CW1, registered the case in Crime No.51/2017 and accused Nos.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail. 5. After investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Section 379 of IPC. After filing the charge sheet, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49839 CRL.A No. 737 of 2021 case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered in S.C.No.77/2018. 6. On hearing, the trial Court has framed the charges for the commission of alleged offences. Same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and 17 documents are marked as Exs.P1 to P17. Material objects are marked as MO.1 to MO.1(c). 8. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution. However, accused have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. 9. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49839 CRL.A No. 737 of 2021 10. Learned HCGP Sri. B.Lakshman, appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is contrary to law. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.1 in whose presence sandalwood billets have been seized and to that effect seizure mahazar was made in presence of PW.2 and PW.3. the trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that on the basis of voluntary statement of the accused, seizure was effected by PW1 in the presence of PW2 and PW3. Though PWs.2 and 3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, during the course of cross-examination by Public Prosecutor, they supported the seizure in presence of the accused. Trial Court failed to give due consideration to the fact that while recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused have not denied possession of sandalwood billets. Further, he submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and sought for dismissal of the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49839 CRL.A No. 737 of 2021 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials placed before this Court, the following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the State has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal? 2. What order? 13. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is necessary to mention here as to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND passed in Criminal Appeal No.355 of 2013 connected with Criminal Appeal No.788 of 2013 decided on 28th January, 2025. In the said judgment, relying on the decisions in the case of BABU - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49839 CRL.A No. 737 of 2021 SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149; in the case of CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415; and in the case of H.D. SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581, the Apex Court has summarized the principles governing exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against judgment of acquittal under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same are as under: “8. …8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49839 CRL.A No. 737 of 2021 can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 14. In the case on hand, to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. PW.2, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Court has discussed the evidence of other witnesses, who are official witnesses. 15. In para 12 of the Judgment, the trial Court has observed as under: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49839 CRL.A No. 737 of 2021 "12. In the course of cross-examination it is elicited that, at the time of drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.2, drawing sketch as per Ex.P.3 and recovery of MO.1, no case was registered, but he further stated that, on the sketch and on the MO.1 there is mentioning of crime number. The witness volunteers that, the crime number has been given subsequently on sketch and MO.1." 16. In paragraph 17 of the Judgment, the trial Court has observed as under: "17. The prosecution has relied upon two set of evidence. One set of evidence of interested testimony and another set of evidence of independent evidence. The evidence of interested testimony is not supporting from the evidence of independent testimony. Mere that, the accused No.1 is owner and accused No.1 was the driver of offending vehicle at the time of the seizure, mere that, they got arrested along with the said vehicle itself is not sufficient unless and until proof that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were possessed and transported sandalwood billets in their vehicle at relevant point of time. Possession and transportation of sandalwood billets in the said vehicle has not been established by the prosecution through the independent panch witnesses. According to the defence set out by the accused that, the police by putting sandalwood billets in the vehicle of the accused obtained photographs as per Exs.P.4 and 5. The same has been elicited through the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. Ex.P.3 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49839 CRL.A No. 737 of 2021 sketch discloses that, the crime number and offence have been written at the time of preparation of sketch itself, but the evidence of PW.1 is contrary to the contents of Ex.P.3, which makes it clear that the alleged spot sketch prepared later after registration of the case and MO.1 contains crime number appears that, the PW.1 has done spot mahazar, sketch in the police station itself, not on the spot said to be situated on service road of NH-4 near Naveen lodge. The said circumstances substantiated from the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and defence set out by the accused. There are probabilities in the defence set out by the accused. Therefore, the very involvement of the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the commission of crime creates doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused. Accordingly, I answer the point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative." 17. On re-appreciation, re-consideration and re-examination of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any legal or factual error in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, I answer point No.1 in 'Negative'. 18. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49839 CRL.A No. 737 of 2021 ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41