JUDGMENT :

K. Natarajan, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Sessions Case No. 40/2018 dated 23.08.2019, wherein accused Nos. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 86, 87, 73(d) and 24(e) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 'the KF Act') sentencing imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 86 of the KF Act and 5 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the KF Act, 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 73(d) of the KF Act and further 6 months for Section 24(e) of KF Act and 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7 and learned HCGP for respondent-State.

3. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the purpose of convenience.

4. The facts of the case of prosecution is that the Range Forest Officer, Dharwad Range filed charge sheet against 13 accused persons for the above said offences alleging that on 22.10.2017 the P.W. 1 received a credible information that in the limits of Kotur beet at Gungargatti (Neeralkatti) forest some persons cutting and removing the sandalwood trees. Then the forest officials and P.Ws. 2 and 3 panchas went to the spot, where they found there were 9 peoples were cutting the sandalwood trees and transporting the same. Immediately, they apprehended 4 accused persons from them, however 5 persons were managed to escape from the clutches of the team. On enquiry, they revealed the names of accused Nos. 1 to 4 i.e., Aduri Mulami Adivasi, Pungi Husum Adivasi, Gramabai and Jamundu Adivasi and on further enquiry they also informed about the names of other accused against whom a split up case was registered.

5. During the investigation, they were also said to have arrested some other accused persons and seized 15 Kgs of sandalwood under the panchanama. Then all the accused persons were produced before the Court, out of them 2 accused persons i.e., accused Nos. 5 and 6 said to be juvenile offenders. Thereafter, charge sheet came to be against accused Nos. 1 to 13. After filing of charge sheet, trial Court framed charges against accused Nos. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 and read over to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case of prosecution, in all 10 witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 to 10, and there were 19 documents were marked as Ex. Ps.1 to 19 and 18 materials objects as M.Os. 1 to 18. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded under the incriminating materials, same was read over and explained to the accused. The case of the accused was totally denial, but not chosen to lead any evidence. After hearing the arguments, trial Court found guilty of accused Nos. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 and convicted them and sentenced them to undergo as stated supra vide order dated 28.08.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7 have preferred this appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the judgment of trial Court is not sustainable in law. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record. The P.Ws. 2 and 3 the independent witnesses not supported the prosecution case and the trial Court convicted only on the basis of the official witnesses. As per the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 to 6 and 10, the Forest Officials visited the spot after receiving the information and arrested the accused persons and seized the sandalwood billets and after arresting the accused persons brought to the Police Station, later a FIR has been registered which amount to investigation started prior to the registration of the case it by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and subsequent