MOHAMMED RAFI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] and under Section 379 r/w. 511 IPC, on a trial held by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandya.

(2.) THE facts reveal that on 11.01.2001, the appellant herein had approached P.W. 1 -Smt. Parvathamma and the members of her family to take the sandalwood tree that was grown by them in the backyard of their house. She had refused to give the sandalwood tree. The appellant had threatened that he would cut and remove the tree in the night.

(3.) THE appellant in the appeal memo has taken -up many contentions and it is his grievance that the sandalwood tree had fallen on its own and the offence under Section 379 IPC or under the Forest Act has not been proved. He states that there is considerable distance between the place of occurrence and the place where the cut sandalwood tree was found and therefore he contends that he was not in possession of the sandalwood tree at that time. It is also his submission that the witnesses examined are the interested witnesses and there are no independent witnesses and hence he submits that the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted. It is also his contention that there is discrepancy in the evidence and he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The documents placed on record are not sufficient. There is no spot -mahazar and the documents are created. It is also his contention that there is discrepancy in respect of his name in the records and there is no explanation for that. It is also his contention that P.W. 3 has given inconsistent version and therefore, the prosecution case cannot be accepted. A specific contention is raised in para 16 that no expert's opinion is produced to prove that the cut tree was sandalwood tree and therefore, he submits that the prosecution case cannot be accepted. On these grounds, he has sought for setting aside the conviction.