SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1199

1996(6) Supreme 649
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. Ray and K.Venkataswami, JJ.
Divakar Neelkantha Hegde & Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka etc. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 147-148 of 1991
With
Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1991
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 213-216 of 1991
All decided on 7-8-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : N. Natarajan, Sr. Advocate F. Harish Kumar and V. Krishnamurthy, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mohan Kataria, M. Veerappa, K. H. Nobin Singh and Manjula Kulkarni, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Principle of extending the benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused cannot be readily accepted, but should be carefully applied if certain circumstances exist and warrant the application of the principle.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Conviction under-Appeal-Deceased was Forest Range Officer-He was asked by authorities to keep a watch to intercept lorry that was expected to transport illegally cut forest fuel wood-Deceased signalling the lorry to stop-It fled away avoiding signals-Deceased and his men followed lorry-Accused in lorry did not allow deceased to discharge his official duty-Deceased climbed over the crashboard in front of vehicle-A-1 started vehicle while deceased was standing on crashboard-Deceased was found dead and lorry was taken away from that place-Prosecution case that A-1 attacked the deceased with forest log and caused his death-Defence case that deceased died on account of a fall from crash board when lorry diverting from Tar road entering into katcha road-Inconsistencies in evidence of PWs-Evenly balanced two views possible-Benefit of reasonable doubt granted to accused-Charge against A-1, A-8 and 10 u/s 302 not proved-Conviction for other forest offences confirmed. (Paras 19 to 22)

       CRIMINAL TRIAL-Benefit of doubt-Principle of extending benefit of reasonable doubt to accused-Should be carefully applied when.

       Held that the principle of extending the benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused cannot be readily accepted, but should be carefully applied if certain circumstances exist and warrant the application of the principle. (Para 15)

       

JUDGMENT

Venkataswami J.-All these appeals by special leave are preferred against the common judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 791, 792 of 1988 and 129-130 of 1989 dated 20th July, 1990. Briefly stated the facts as presented by the prosecution are the following :-

2. P.W. 16 Praveen Chandra was the Divisional Forest Officer of Sirsi Division during the relevant period. On 19.4.1988 at about 4.00 p.m. he received a phone call from an annonymous caller that at night at about 1.00 a.m. (20.4.1988) there was likelihood of a lorry transporting forest produce from Manjuguni side and the same person called P.W 16 half an hour later and informed him that his officials would do well to be present near Kambigar cross at about 11.00 p.m. itself.

3. The area referred to by the annonymous caller fell in the jurisdiction of Hulekal Range Forest Office. Accordingly, P.W. 16 summoned the deceased Arvind Hegde, the concerned Forest Range Officer to meet him to take instructions in connection with the above-said phone call. The deceased met P.W. 16 at about 6.30 p.m. on 19.4.1988 and he was asked by P.W. 16 to keep a watch at the Kambigar Cross to intercept the lorry that was expected to transport illegally cut forest fuel wood. The deceased was also instructed to take necessary staff with him for his assistance. The revolver in the custody of P.W. 16 was also handed over to the deceased. One Mahabaleshwar Joshi was brother-in-law of the deceased and was also a Forest contractor. Few days earlier he has lent his Ambassador Car bearing No. MES 6008 with the deceased. The deceased travelled in the said car from Sirsi to Hulekal Range Office and took the assistance of P.W.s 2 and 3 (forest guards) and went to Hegdekatta Forest Office to take assistance of P.W.1. P.W.1 was requested to secure the presence of P.Ws. 4 & 5 (forest guards) for further assistance. P.W.s 2 and 3 were armed with a gun each. The deceased further directed the forest guards to place heavy stones across the road to block free passage to the lorry. At about 3.30 a.m. on 20.4.1988, as expected, the lorry returned from Kambigar Forest loaded with illegally cut jungle wood upto the body level. The lorry had a nameboard "SHRIMAN NARAYANA and registration No. MYE 5070. In spite of the deceased signalling the lorry to stop, it fled away avoiding the stones kept on the road. The deceased fired at it with his revolver, but the bullet could not release. P.W 2 also fired from his gun, but it missed the target, namely, the wheel tyre of the vehicle. Thereafter the deceased and his men followed the lorry in their car and the lorry having gone near the house of one Neelkantha Hegde stopped in front of it. A-11 was driving the lorry and there were 4 persons in the lorry. All of them got down and ran to the house of Neelkantha Hegde.

4. Neelkantha Hegde, his sons, namely, A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-10 as well as his Uncle s sons, namely A-2, A-5, A-8 and A-9 were all in the house and they came out of the house on seeing the lorry. The deceased informed the accused who came out of the house that A-11 had driven the lorry without stopping the same in spite of signal was given to stop the same. The deceased called upon them to produce any permit if they had to cut and carry jungle wood. The accused replied in the negative. When the deceased informed them that the lorry would be seized, all the accused protested that they would not allow him to seize the lorry, but wanted to unload the wood. In spite of the deceased repeatedly informing them about the various forest offences committed and about the information they had already got and instructions given by P.W.16, the accused did not allow the deceased to discharge his official duty. Realising the situation, the deceased asked P.W.5 to inform P.W.16 on phone about the happenings there. The deceased also asked P.W. 4 to go to Sirsi and bring P.W.16 to the spot. Sensing the gravity of the situation, A-4, A-6 and A-7 told the other













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top