- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 809 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: 1. THIMMARAJU S/O DHANUCHAAIAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 2. DHANUCHAIAH S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KUNCHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DIST:561 202. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN C., ADV. FOR SMT. JYOTHI S. KEMPEGOWDA, ADV.) AND: THE STATE BY CHELURU POLICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV. FOR THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & S.J., TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.184/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 447,353,504 AND 307 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2013 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru in S.C.No.184/2012 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 353, 504 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Belur police station, Tumkur division filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 447, 353 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.07.2011 at about 10:00 p.m. in the forest area in Sy.No.4 of Arenahalli, Nittur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed criminal tress-pass into the forest land by bringing a tractor with trailer bearing No.KA-11-T-4247. It is further alleged that with the common intention of committing the murder of CW.1 - Siddalingamurthy, CW.2 - Maranna and CW.3 - Jayalakshmi, who were officials of the forest department, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted CWs.1 to 3 public servants, in order to deter them from discharging their official duties. It is also alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention, intentionally insulted CWs.1 and 2 by using filthy language namely "¨ÉÆý ªÀÄPÀ̼À, ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄPÀ̼À" thereby provoking them with the intention that such provocation would cause a breach of the public peace. Further, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 with the common intention of causing death of CWs.1 to 3, attempted to run the tractor over them, thereby committing an act which if it had resulted in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 death, would have amounted to an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 5. After filing charge-sheet, cognizance was taken against the accused and the case was registered in C.C.No.282 of 2012 and after committed to the Court of Sessions, case was registered in S.C.No.184 of 2012. On hearing the charges, the Trial Court has framed the charges for the alleged offences. The same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses as PWs- 1 to 11; 42 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P42; three material objects were marked as MOs-1 to 3. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 447, 353, 504 and 307 r/w 34 IPC and passed sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.205/- each for the offence under Section 447 r/w 34 IPC. Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 353 r/w 34 IPC and accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 504 r/w 34 IPC and the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 307 IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC. 8. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the complainant and other two witnesses PW-1 to PW-3 are all Government Officials and they have turned hostile. Even PW-1 who is stated to be the complainant and being a forest guard has not categorically stated the fact that when the incident took place and what date he had lodged the complaint. Prima- facie it will show that complaint itself is a false complaint and no incident/crime has taken place. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that even though PW-1 to PW3 are all educated, they have failed to identify the number of the vehicle, that is Tractor as on the date of alleged incident. Further, the trial Court failed to consider the fact that there were no injuries or they have not taken any treatment to attract the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Even in the complaint or in statement also, PW-1 has not stated anything about the intention of the accused to commit the murder of PW1 to PW3, who are stated to be the eye-witnesses. The Trial Court has not considered - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 the fact that alleged incident has occurred on 23.07.2011 at about 10.00 pm. But the complaint was lodged on 24.07.2011 at 07.00 pm. As there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, as such, complaint itself is an after-thought and motivated. The Trial Court further failed to appreciate the fact that PW-4 has categorically admitted with regard to the spot mahazar and he had stated that he does not know the contents of panchanama. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. The prosecution has not placed any material to constitute the offence under Section 353 and 307 IPC. However, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 353 and 307 r/w 34 IPC, which is not sustainable under law. On all these grounds, the appellants sought to allow this appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the accused have committed the offence under Section 447 and 504 IPC, then the sentence already undergone by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 accused for a period of more than four months, may be set off and release the accused. 11. As against this, the learned HCGP would submit that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record, in accordance with law and facts, absolutely there are no materials to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of materials placed before this Court, the following points would arise for my consideration: i) Whether the Trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 353, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC? ii) What order? My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: In the Negative. Point No.2: As per final order. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 Regarding Point No.1: 13. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The genesis of the case arise out of the complaint Ex.P12 filed by D.S.Siddalingamurthy, who is examined as PW-1, in which it is stated as under: "C
ಾನು ೕಲಂಡ ಾ¸Àದ ಈೆ 11 ವಷಗಂದ ಅರಣ ಇಾೆಯ ಅರಣ ರ!ಕ
ಾ# ಕಲ¸À$ಾಡು%&ರು'ೆ&ೕ£É. ನಮೆ )ೊಡ+ಗು,, ಅ-ೇನಹ/, 0ೊಂ10ಾ2¸ï ಸುತ&ಮುತ& ಅರಣ ಪ2)ೇಶ ¸ÉÃರುತ&)ೆ. ¸Àದ7 ಅರಣ ಪ2)ೇಶದ ಸ0ಾರದ ವ%8ಂದ 9ೕಲ#7 ಅPÉÃ:;ಾ 'ಾಗ <ಾಗೂ ಇನು= ಇತ-ೆ ¸À>ಗಳನು= <ಾ@)ೇವA ಅದರ ಉಸು&Cಾ7ಯನು=
ಾವAಗಳD
ೋ10ೊಳ/%&)ೇವA E
ಾಂಕ 23/7/11 ರಂದು -ಾ%2 10 ಗಂFೆ ¸Àಮಯದ ನಮೆ ಬಂದ ಖIತ ವತ$ಾನದ ೕ-ೆೆ ಆ-ೇನಹ/ ಅರಣ ಪ2)ೇಶದ 9ೕಲ#7 Kೕಲುಗಳನು= ಕ1ಯು%&)ಾLರಂತ ಬಂದ ಖIತ ವತ$ಾನದ ೕ-ೆೆ ಅ-ೇನಹ/ ಅರಣ ಪ2)ೇಶ)ೊಳೆ
ಾನು ನನ= Mೊ'ೆ ಅರಣ ರ!ಕ
ಾದ >ದLಂಗಮೂ% ಮತು& ವಲNಾಲಕ-ಾದ ಜಯಲ!ಮP ರವರುಗಳD QೈSನ <ೋ# ಸು$ಾರು 500 TೕಟV ದೂರದ QೈSಗಳನು= 9>
ಾನು ಮತು& >ದLಂಗಮೂ% ಒಂದು ಕXೆ8ಂದ <ೋ# Yಾಜ Qಾಟ7ಯನು= <ಾ@
ೋಡು%&)ಾLಗ, ಒಂದು ಕXೆ8ಂದ mÁæöåPÀÖgï ಬಂEತು. mÁæöåPÀÖgï£ÀÄß 9ಸಲು <ೋ)ಾಗ ಆತನು 9¸ÀzÉ ಓ1>0ೊಂಡು <ೋಗಲು ಪ2ಯತ=ಪಟ\ ನಂತರ
ಾವA mÁæöåPÀÖgï 9>
ೋಡಾ# ಅದು PÉAಪA ಬಣ]ದ ¸Á$ಾ2^ ಕಂಪ9ಯ 0ೆಎ-11-`- 5247
ೇ mÁæöåPÀÖgï ಆ#ದುL ಅದರ ನಂಬV ಸaಷ\Cಾ# 0ಾಣು%ರಲ mÁæöåPÀÖgï£ÀÄß ಓ1ಸು%&ದLವನು %ಮP-ಾಜು bc ಧನಹುಚf, ಕಂಚಗನಹ/, Fಾ2gಕ\V ೕೆ ಆತನ ತಂ)ೆ ಧನಹುಚfನು ಇದL ಆಗ Kತ0ೆ ¸À0ಾ7 ಅರಣ)ೊಳೆ <ೋ# ಕಳ/ತನEಂದ 9ೕಲ#7 ಮರ ಕ10ೊಂಡು <ೋಗು%&ೕ;ಾ ಎಂದು <ೇದL0ೆ ಇಬhರು ¸ÉÃj ನಮPನು= ಅCಾಚf - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 ಶಬLಗಂದ Qಾ8ೆ ಬಂದಂ'ೆ Qೋ ಮಕಾ ¸ÉÆÃ¼É ಮುಂಡರ 9ೕವA ;ಾರು ನಮPನು= 0ೇಳDವAದ0ೆ ಎಂತ ಇ'ಾE;ಾ# Qೈದು
ಾವAಗಳD ¸Á-ಾರು ಗಂಧದ ಮರಗಳನು= ಕ1ದು0ೊಂಡು <ೋ)ಾಗ ;ಾರು ನಮPನು= 0ೇಳಲ 9ೕವA ;ಾರು 0ೇಳDವAದ0ೆ ಎಂತ ಕೂಾಡು'ಾ& Fಾಕ\VನದL 9ೕಲ#7 ಮರಗಳ Kೕiನು= ¸ÀÄ7ದು
ಾವAಗಳD j1ದು0ೊಳ/ಲು <ೋ)ಾಗ ಧನಹುಚfನು ಆತನ ಮಗ
ಾದ %ಮP-ಾಜ9ೆ mÁæöåPÀÖgï£ÀÄß ಅವರ ೕೆ <ೊXೆದು ¸Á8>bಡುಎಂತ <ೇದ. ಆಗ %ಮP-ಾಜನು mÁæöåPÀÖgï£ÀÄß Mೋ-ಾ# ನಮP ೕೆ <ೊXೆದು ¸Á8ಸಲು ಬಂದ ಆಗ
ಾವA ತka>0ೊಂqÉêÀÅ. mÁæöåPÀÖgï£ÀÄß 9¸ÀzÉ Mೋ-ಾ# ಓ1>0ೊಂಡು <ೋದರು. ನಂತರ
ಾವAಗಳD ಅರಣ ಪ2)ೇಶ)ೊಳ0ೆ <ೋ#
ೋ1)ಾಗ ಅ ಮರಗಳನು= ಕ1Eರುವ ಗುರುತು >@ತು. ನಂತರ E.24/7/2011 ರಂದು ಸlಳ0ೆ <ೋ)ಾಗ ಅ-ೇನಹ/ 0ೆ-ೆ ಅಂಗಳದ -ಾ%2 ಕಳ/ತನEಂದ 9ೕಲ#7 ಮರಗಳನು= ಕ1ದು <ಾ@ದL KೕiಗಳD ಅೆ bEದLವA. ಅವAಗಳ ಬುಡಗಳನು= ಮತು& ಆ-ೋkಗಳನು= ಕಳ/ತನEಂದ ಕ1ದ ಬುಡಗಳನು= <ೋ0ೆ $ಾಡಾ# ಒಂ)ೆ ಆ#ದLವA. ನಂತರ
ಾವA Qೇ-ೊಂದು mÁæöåಕ\Vನ 9ೕಲ#7 ಮರಗಳನು= <ಾ@0ೊಂಡು ಗುbh ಅರnಾo0ಾ7 ಕpೇ7ೆ qಾ#>)ೇವA. ಅವAಗಳD 39 9ೕಲ#7 ಮರದ ¥ÉÆïïUÀದLವA. ಈ ಬೆ ನಮP ಕpೇ7ಯ ಎr ಓ.> 9/11 ಕಲಂ 24 (ಇ) 71 ಎ D¥sï 0ೆ.ಎr DPïÖ 1963 -ೋi 144 Cs 0ೆ.ಎr.ಆV 1969 7ೕ'ಾ ಅ-ೋkಗಾದ %ಮP-ಾಜು bc ಧನಹುಚfಯ, ಧನಹುಚfಯ @ ಧನಂಜಯ bc %ಮPಯ, ಕಂಚಗನಹ/, ಗುbh vÁ¯ÉÆèÃPï ಇವರುಗಳ ರುದt ಪ2ಕರಣ )ಾಖ>)ೇವA. E
ಾಂಕ 01/8/11 ರಂದು ನಮP ಅರಣ ಪ2)ೇಶದ ಕಳ/ತನ $ಾ10ೊಂಡು <ೋಗಲು ತಂEದL PÉಎ-11-`-5247
ೇ mÁæöåಕ\Vನು= %ೕxÀಪAರ ಅರಣ ಪ2)ೇಶದ ಪಂಚ
ಾ ಮೂಲಕ ಅ$ಾನತು& ಪ1>0ೊಂಡರು. ಆ-ೋkಗಳD ಅgÉÃನಹ/ ಅರಣ ಪ2)ೇಶ0ೆ ಅ%ಕ2ಮ ಪ2Cೇಶ $ಾ1 ಕಳ/ತನEಂದ 9ೕ#7 ಮರಗಳನು= ಕ1ದು ಅCಾಚf ಶಬLಗಂದ Qೈದು ಸ0ಾ7 0ೆಲಸ0ೆ ಅಡಚಡnೆ $ಾ1, ಕೂೆ $ಾಡುವ ಉ)ೆLೕಶEಂದ 0ೆಎ-11-`-5247
ೇ mÁæöåಕ\V ೕೆ ಹ%&ಸಲು ಬಂEರು'ಾ&
ೆ. ಆ-ೋkಗಳನು= ಮತು& ಕೃತ0ೆ ಉಪvೕ#>ದL 0ೆಎ-11-`- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 5247
ೇ mÁæöåಕ\Vನು= ಮರಕ1ಯಲು ಉಪvೕ#>ದL ಮಚುf, PÉÆಡ, ರಂ¥sÀ
ೋ1ರು'ೆ&ೕ
ೆ. ಪAನಃ
ೋ1ದ-ೆ ಗುರು%ಸು'ೆ&ೕ
ೆ." 14. The prosecution has examined the complainant, D.S.Siddalingamurthy as PW-1. He has deposed in his evidence that since Eight (8) years he is working as a Forest Guard in Gubbi Range Forest Office. PW-2, Marannna and PW-3, Jayalakshmamma are Forest Guards. That on 23.10.2011, PW-1 along with PW-2 and PW-3 went to Theertha Ramapura Forest, which belongs to the Department of Forest. Then, they found a tractor loaded with wood. Then, they parked their bike and proceeded by walk in the forest. One Maranna along with him, Ningegowda, Jayalakshmamma were on the other side. They have found that there are eucalyptus (neelagiri) trees in the tractor. They tried to apprehend the persons who were in the tractor, by name Thimmaraju and Dhanucchaiah. On seeing them, they fled without stopping the tractor. They have witnessed the same in torch light. They have found the place of cutting of eucalyptus trees. The accused threatened them and fled away. On the next - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 day at 08.00 am., they conducted mahazar and reported the same to the Forest office. They filed the complaint on 24.07.2011 at 7.00 pm. thirty Nine (39) eucalyptus trees were cut down. They also informed the same to the Range Forest Officer, Gubbi. Then, lodged a complaint to the police. After filing the complaint, police came to the spot and conducted mahazar and also recorded their statement. That on 07.09.2011, they have seized the tractor and handed over the same to District Forest Office. This witness was partly treated as hostile witness with the permission of the Court and was cross-examined. 15. PW-2/Maranna, Forest Guard, has deposed in his evidence that since Eleven (11) years he is working as a Forest Guard in Doddaguni Forest Range. PW-3/ Jayalakshmamma and PW-1/D.S.Siddalingamurthy are also working as Forest Guards in the said Forest Range. On 23.07.2011, he went to Doddaguni in the evening. He has received a phone call between 8.00 to 8.30 pm. Gangegowda informed him over phone to come near his - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 Quarters. Then, he went there. Gangegowda informed him as to the cutting of the trees in the Arenahalli Plantation and also told him and Siddalingamurthy to go to Arenahalli Plantation. By that time, Siddalingamurthy came there. He and Siddalingamurthy proceeded on Hero Honda motorcycle. Thereafter, Forester and Jayalakshmamma also went near Arenahalli Plantation. They heard the sound of cutting of trees in tank bed area. They also heard the sound of tractor and found the light and they stopped the tractor. The tractor driver stopped the tractor and abused them in singular language. Then, all four persons went there. The accused were in tractor. Then they started the tractor. Again, they prevented the tractor to stop. But they did not stop the tractor and they tried to run the tractor upon them and then, they escaped. He did not know the company of the tractor. After lapse of 3 to 4 days, they came to know that tractor was seized. Thereafter, he has not witnessed the same and has not seen the saw and axe used for cutting the eucalyptus trees and police have not recorded his statement. This witness also partly treated as - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 hostile witness and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. 16. PW-3/Jayalakshmamma has deposed in her evidence that since six (6) years she is working as Forest Guard in Gubbi Forest Range and she is Forest Watcher in Arenahalli Kondli Cross, Doddaguni, which comes under forest area. Neelagiri, acaesia, kaaduthangadi trees are grown in the forest. They are supervising all the trees. That on 23.07.2011, Forest officer Gangegowda received information as to cutting of neelagiri trees in Arenahalli forest area. As per phone message, Siddalingamurthy, Gangegowda, Maranna and herself proceeded in two scooters and found the tractor, which was loaded with neelagiri poles. Then, the accused abused them in filthy language and also tried to run the tractor upon them. Then, they took away the tractor by unloading the neelagiri poles in Arenahalli tank bund area. He do not know the intention of the accused and there were 39 neelagiri poles in the tractor. On the next day, they shifted - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 neelagiri poles in another tractor to the forest office, Gubbi. On the next day, police came to the spot. Police have not recorded her statement. This witness was also partly treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. 17. PW-4/Nagaraju, the daily wage employee working in Forest Department, Gubbi Range has deposed in his evidence that since Twenty Five (25) years he is working as daily wage employee in Forest Department, Gubbi Range. One Krishnappa was also working as a daily wage employee. The Forest Guard, Siddalingamurthy came there and conducted the mahazar as to the cutting of Thirty Nine (39) neelagiri trees and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P2. 18. PW-5/Rajanna has deposed in his evidence that police have conducted seizure mahazar Ex.P3 when the accused have produced the axe and chopper. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 19. PW-6/Ramachandraiah has deposed in his evidence that police have conducted mahazar as per Ex.P4 and seized one tractor and trailer under the massacre. 20. PW-7/Radha.D.C., has deposed in her evidence that she is working as Deputy Range Forest Officer in Gubbi Forest Range and PW-1 Siddalingamurthy was working as Forest Guard. Gangegowda was working as Forest Officer. PW-2/Maranna and PW-3/Jayalakshmamma were working as Forest Watchers in Gubbi Forest Range, Arenahalli of Doddaguni section, which comes under Gubbi Forest Range. Theertha Ramapura Forest Area also comes under their Department. That on 28.07.2011, she has conducted the mahazar as to the cutting of neelagiri trees in Survey No.4 of Arenahalli Village. She has examined the stems of the trees and identified the same in yellow colour and given numbers. That on 01.08.2011, she has received the information that the tractor was parked in Survey No.4 of Karadikallu Village. Herself, Gangegowda, Ramachandraaiah and Nijalingaiah went there. The tractor - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 was parked in front of the house of Saravanna. The tractor was red in colour of Samrat company. Trailer was also there. The registration number of the tractor tallied with the tractor number shown in the FIR. They enquired one lady by name Bhavani and she told that she do not know who is the owner of the tractor. Then, they have seized the tractor under mahazar, Ex.P4. She has also deposed that on 28.07.2011, they have conducted mahazar as per Ex.P5 in the forest area. [[ 21. PW-8/Gangegowda has deposed in his evidence that since July 2011, he is working as Deputy Forest Officer in Gubbi Forest Range. PW-7 Radha was the Deputy Range Forest Officer; PW-1/Siddalingamurthy was Forest Guard. PW-2/Maranna and PW-3/Jayalakshmamma were Forest Watchers working in Doddaguni Section, Gubbi Forest Range. Further, he has deposed that on 23.07.2011 at 11.00 am, when he was in Headquarters, PW-2/Maranna came and informed him that one tractor is going in a forest area to cut down the trees. Then, he informed the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 same to Forest Guard Siddalingamurthy and Forest Watcher PW-3 Jayalakshmamma and sent them to the spot, i.e., Arenahalli. Then, all the four proceeded to the Arenahalli forest area in two bikes. In order to avoid the sound of motorbike, they stopped the motorcycle at the distance of half a kilometre and proceeded in the forest area with the aid of torch light and they formed two groups; one is Siddalingamurthy and Maranna and another himself and one Jayalakshmamma and proceeded. They witnessed that the driver of the tractor tried to take away the tractor from the forest area. Then, Siddalingamurthy and Maranna stopped that vehicle. He and Jayalakshmamma found as to the tractor loaded with Neelagiri trees. Tractor was run by Thimmaraju. Dhanuchaiah was sitting by his side. Then they enquired the accused as to the cutting of neelagiri trees. Then, they told them that 'who are you to ask them'? Then they told them that they have committed illegal activities and they will seize tractor and trailer. The tractor engine number was not found on the engine. The tractor was red in colour - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 and by name Samrat. By that time, when they tried to seize the tractor, Thimmaraju told the driver Dhanucchaiah to run the tractor upon them and abused them. He will look after all the expenses and they escaped from that place in the tractor. Then, they found the tractor registration number as KA-11-T-5247. They chased the tractor for some distance but they could not trace out the tractor. Thereafter, they came to the spot and found the neelagiri trees. They witnessed the spot where they have cut down the trees and found that 39 neelagiri trees were cut down. They identified the same and gave numbers with yellow colour. On the same day, they conducted mahazar as per Ex.P6. Thereafter, they informed the same to the RFO and he has lodged a complaint to the police as per Ex.P7. Further, he has deposed as to the mahazar Ex.P8. He has also deposed as to the seizure of tractor under mahazar Ex.P4 and seizure of neelagiri poles under mahazar Ex.P9 and seizure of tractor under mahazar Ex. P10 and RFO has prepared enquiry report as per Ex.P11 and has identified by the accused Nos.1 and 2. On the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 date of incident, the accused have prevented them by disturbing their public duties and attempted to kill them by running tractor upon them. 22. PW-9/Dinesh Patil and PW-10/G.C.Nagaraju and PW- 11/Ashok Kumar, Sub-Inspectors of Police have deposed as to their respective investigation. 23. On careful examination of the entire evidence based on the record, it is clear that the alleged incident took place on 23.07.2011. The complaint, Ex.P12 came to be filed on 24.07.2011 at 19.00 hours. On the basis of this complaint, Sub-Inspector of Police, Cheluru Police Station registered the case in Crime No.98 of 2011 against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the commission of offence under Sections 307, 379, 447, 353, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and submitted the FIR to the court on 25.07.2011 at 03.00 pm. In column No.13 of the FIR, which is marked as Ex.P13, it is stated that the date and time of dispatch of FIR is 24.07.2011 at 19.30 hours. But the learned Magistrate has endorsed on Ex.P13 FIR that he has - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 received the FIR on 25.07.2011 at 03.00 pm. None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed as to the delay in filing the complaint and also the delay in submitting the FIR to the Court. PW-1/Siddalingamurthy, the complainant has not deposed in his evidence as to the tractor and trailer number. Even Ex.P12, complaint does not reveal as to the registration number of tractor and trailer, which was involved in the crime. 24. Though PW-1 to PW-3 are the forest officials, they have not filed a complaint at the earliest point of time. PW-1 to PW-3 being Forest Officials would have registered the case suo-motu under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code and penal provisions of the Forest Act and Rules. But they have not done so. Therefore, the delay in submitting the FIR to the court will create a reasonable doubt as to the alleged crime. 25. PW-1/Siddalingamurthy and PW-3/ Jayalakshmamma have not deposed as to the fact that the accused tried to kill them by running over tractor upon them, and he was - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 treated as partly hostile witness. PW-2 has deposed in his evidence that accused have stopped the tractor. When they stopped the tractor, he would have taken out the key of the tractor. But he has not done so. Further, he has deposed that again, the accused started tractor. Then, they tried to prevent them. But they did not stop the tractor and tried to run the tractor upon them. The Investigation Officer has conducted Ex.P2 mahazar on 26.07.2011 in Survey No.4 of Arenahalli regarding cutting of 39 neelagiri trees. Though the Investigating Officer has seized 39 neelagiri poles on 26.07.2011, he has not inserted the same in property form. Ex.P2 mahazr submitted to the Court on 18.04.2012 though the police have seized 39 neelagiri poles under Ex.P2, they have not reported the same to the Court as required under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. 26. Ex.P3 is the mahazar conducted by the police on 05.09.2011. The police have seized the saw, axe and chopper, which were used for cutting of neelagiri trees. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 Though the police have seized the M.O.Nos.1 to 3 under mahazar Ex.P3 on 05.08.2011, the Investigation Officer has inserted the same on 05.09.2011 and submitted to the Court on 06.09.2011. The delay in submitting the seizure report has not been explained by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has not collected the Registration of Certificate pertaining to the Tractor. The Investigating Officer has also not explained anything as to the non- production of registration certificate. The Investigating Officer has also not explained anything as to the non- examination of the owner of the tractor. Till this day, the tractor is in the custody of concerned Department. The prosecution has failed to explain how the accused have taken tractor from the possession of the owner. All these material lapses will create reasonable doubt as to the of alleged offence said to have been committed by the accused. The victims have not sustained any injuries. The Investigating Officer has not collected the driving licence of the accused No.1 who was the driver of the tractor at the time of commission of alleged offence. The - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 Investigating Officer has not deposed anything as to whether the driver of the tractor who is accused No.1, was having a valid licence to drive the tractor or not. The Investigating Officer has also not submitted charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 181 or Section 5 read with 180 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act against owner of the vehicle, if he has entrusted the vehicle to accused No.1 if he was not having a valid driving licence at the relevant point of time. 27. The IO has also not produced any document to show that the Survey.No.4 of Arenahalli Village belongs to Forest Department. Since the IO has failed to produce the material evidence before this Court, the sole and interested testimony of the official witnesses, is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused have committed the alleged offences. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the material on record in proper perspective. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 28. On re-appreciation, re-consideration and re-examination of the entire material on record, I do not find cogent, convincing, corroborative, clinching and trustworthy evidence to convict the accused for the commission of alleged offences. The prosecution has failed to place sufficient materials to prove the essential ingredients of the commission of alleged offences. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in Negative. Regarding Point No.2 29. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R (i) Appeal is allowed; (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 05.08.2013 passed in S.C.No.184/2012 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru, is set aside; - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8521 CRL.A No. 809 of 2013 (iii) Accused/appellants are acquitted of the offence under Sections 447, 353, 504 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code; (iv) The trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount, if any deposited by the appellants. (v) The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled. Registry is directed to send the copy of the judgment along with Trial Court records to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72