The court established that in criminal cases, particularly those involving statutory offenses like illegal logging, the prosecution must provide consistent and credible evidence to secure a conviction; any significant contradictions can lead to the benefit of doubt being extended to the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the petitioners' counsel and also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.

2. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that, on credible information on 18/10/2004, CWs.1, 3 and 5 along with three panchas went near Heggodu cross, Genasinakuni road, and found a bike and a mini lorry (407), 6 to 7 people who involved in shifting rose wood logs into the mini lorry. When forest officials covered, they started running, out of them 3 were caught and arrested, rest of them are escaped. On enquiry the arrested persons disclosed their names as Eshwara Naika, Thirthesha and Manjunath. They also disclosed the name and address of the persons who run away from the spot. The forest officials found six logs inside the mini lorry and one was lying outside. Further they found no license to transport and departmental seal over the logs. They measured the logs and gave the number and also seized the lorry. To that effect mahazar was drawn.

3. During the course of investigation, on 21/10/2004 the police found the place where the logs were cut and removed. Three more logs were found at that place. The mahazar was also drawn. In all 10 logs were in found and seized in this case. The forest officials registered the case and investigated the matter under Sec. 104(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act and under Sec. 379 of IPC. The police after the investigation of the matter filed the charge sheet and accused persons were secured, they have not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3 and acquitted accused Nos.4 to 7. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months with fine of Rs.2, 500.00 each. In default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each and also accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for set off.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed in Criminal Appeal No.37/2010. The Appellate Court having heard the appellant's counsel and the counsel for the respondent formulated the following points;

(i) Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence. (ii) What Order?

6. The Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record comes to the conclusion that the evidence of witnesses substantiated the case of the prosecution and confirmed the judgment. The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that, both the Courts failed to consider the material available on record. The very seizure is doubtful. The counsel also would submit that the witnesses who have been examined as PW.4 to PW7 are having animosity against these petitioners, since there was a case between them in Civil Court. The counsel also would submit that the evidence of witnesses is contrary to each other. The case of the prosecution that they took the panch witnesses along with them and seized the same and PW5 says that when he went to spot, already they have seized the logs and hence it is clear that he did not accompany the officials of forest department. The counsel also would submit that the photograph which is produced before the Court clearly discloses that, there are 10 logs, they found 7 logs at the spot and all these contradictions are not taken note of. The counsel also would submits that the witnesses speaks that the logs are marked with red colour paint, and on perusal of the photograph the same is not in red colour, but it is white colour and material contradictions are also found in the evidence of PW.1 to PW7. These material contradictions have not been considered by both the Courts and hence, this Court has to exercise the revisional jurisdiction, since both the Courts not considered the material on record in a pro