The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in their acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

G.BASAVARAJA, J.

Both these appeals arise out of the judgment, 04^th March 2014, passed in SC No.100 of 2013 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere (for short “the trial Court”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank and status before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that Honnali Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused for offence punishable under sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act and section 379 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 3^rd July 2012 at about 5.00 pm, upon receiving credible information about theft of Sandalwood in the land of one Nagalur Mahadevappa of Tharaganahalli, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Honnali Police Station, along with the staff, and panchas rushed to the Spot and found accused 123 engaged in cutting sandalwood blocks into small pieces and filling the same into a bag illegally and without any permit or license from the forest authorities with ulterior motive for wrongful gains by selling the same and thereby committed offence punishable under sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act read with section 379 of Indian Penal Code. After filing charge-sheet, case was registered in CC No.267 of 2013. Thereafter, it was committed to the court of sessions which was registered as SC No.100 of 2013. The accused were enlarged on bail. Upon hearing on charges, charges were framed. The same were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. Accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all has examined five witnesses as PWs1 to 5 and marked five documents as per Exhibit P1 to P5 and six material objects were marked as MOs1 to 6. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but have not chosen to lead any defence evidence. After hearing on both sides, the trial court has convicted the accused 1 to 3 for commission of offence punishable under sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act and section 379 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for period of five months. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, appellants-accused have preferred Criminal Appeal No.370 of 2013. Being not satisfied with the imposition of sentence, State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.535 of 2014 seeking imposition of maximum sentence.

4. Sri Raju C.N., learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/accused would submit that the trial court has committed and error in convicting the applicants for the aforesaid offences only on the basis evidence of official witnesses. He would submit that the respondent police have not examined the owner of the land and have also not produced the RTC extract of the land to prove the fact that in which land the respondent recovered the sandalwood pieces from the accused. He would submit that the mahazar was prepared at the police station and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Except PW1 and PW4, all are official witnesses. According to the case of the prosecution, at the time of the incident, several persons were gathered, but the prosecutio