JIGGA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point of law involved in this appeal is, "whether an accused can be convicted on the basis of evidence recorded in his absence when his appearance had not been dispensed with?

(2.) THIS appeal is preferred by the accused No. 3 (in custody) in s. C. No. 16/2006 challenging his conviction and sentence. He had been prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the karnataka Forest Act. The prosecution allegation was that the appellant and other two accused were found by the RFO, Koppa range (P. W. 6), forest guards (P. Ws. 4 and 5) and forester (P. W. 3) in the early hours of morning of 05-04-2005 cutting sandalwood tree in jaipura forest. The prosection claims that on seeing the forest officers, they took to their heels, but were apprehended by the forest officers. A case was registered against all the three accused. During investigation, other two accused were released on bail. It is stated that later they jumped bail and therefore the trial proceeded only against this appellant.

(3.) THE accused (appellant) pleaded not guilty and disputed his involvement. The prosecution examined six witnesses and on consideration of evidence and arguments, the learned Trial Judge convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Section 86 and 87 read with Section 34 of the Karnataka Forest Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for each offence. It is that judgment that has been challenged by the accused No. 3 in the present appeal. 3. Sri. B. N. Poojary, learned counsel for the appellant has raised a preliminary point regarding the validity of the proceedings. It is seen that on the date of the trial i. e. , 24-01 -2007, the accused (the appellant)was not produced. However, the learned Trial Judge proceeded to record evidence. After evidence, the prosecution closed its case and the case was posted to 09. 02. 2007. On 09. 02. 2007 the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was posted for arguments. After hearing the arguments, the judgment was pronounced on 23. 02. 2007.