1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Mysore, on 16.07.2010 in S.C. No. 79/2007, wherein the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 149 of IPC.

2. The appellant in this case is accused no. 2 before the trial Court.

3. The complaint is lodged by one Ravikumar S/o Sannalingaiah, aged about 32 years, who is Forest Watcher of Gundre Range, Begur, H.D. Kote Taluk. The substance of the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P1 during trial, is that:

On 01.10.2006 night at 10.00 p.m. on receiving definite information from N. Begur Forest Office, the Complainant - Range Forest Officer, Mr. Karunakaran, Additional Forester, Mr. Ranganna, Writer, along with Mr. Mariyappa and Mr. Somu, Watchers, went in a Department Jeep, which was driven by Mr. Mohan, for patrolling job at Begur forest area. At about 12.00 A.M. at night when they were patrolling at Kannegala Forest, near River bund, they found 10 to 11 persons were carrying wooden logs from the Forest area and were armed with machu (Chopper), club, etc. The patrolling party chased them and caught two persons out of them as the remaining escaped. Suddenly, one of them snatched a department rifle from Karunakaran and obstructed the complainant and the patrolling officials from discharging their official duties. The said person with an intention to murder the Complainant fired at the leg and members of the patrolling party snatched the rifle from the said person. The other persons ran away. However, two persons as stated above were taken to custody.

4. On inquiry, it was revealed that the person, who fired the rifle, namely, Thangacchan, S/o Verghes, aged 38 years, resident of Padichera Village, Kerala. As the Complainant had sustained serious injuries over the leg, there was bleeding, he was taken in the Department jeep to the hospital at Kenchanahalli and thereafter he was shifted to JSS Hospital, Mysore.

5. A case came to be registered in Cr. No. 87/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 353, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 2, 9, 31, 51, 52 of Wild Life Protection Act and Sections 3 and 27 of Arms Act. Procedures regarding investigation, drawing mahazar, spot mahazar and formalities were conducted.

6. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment, convicted the appellant-accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 307 of IPC and was acquitted for the other offences. The appellant-accused No. 2 was sentenced to undergo SI for two years for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 149 IPC and to undergo SI for three years for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order of Conviction and Sentence, accused No. 2 - Thomas has preferred this appeal.

7. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Amar Correa, learned counsel appearing for appellant-accused No. 2 and learned HCGP for respondent-State.

8. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the Complaint and the prosecution materials are not clear and full of contradictions. They do not present natural facts as the complaint is full of exaggerations. It was further submitted that there was no such incident as stated in the complaint, FIR or the final report. He would further submit that the appellant in this case is accused No. 2 and there are no overt acts attributed against him before trial Court. Further, he would submit that the learned trial Judge has not assigned reasons for convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC and also for imposing the sentence which is harsh.

9. The learned HCGP made the submission that the spot was forest area and the attending circumstances speak about the atrocious acts of the accused.