Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Masti on 31 August, 2023

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC:31428
                                                        CRL.A No. 253 of 2014




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                             BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 253 OF 2014
                      BETWEEN:

                         STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         REPRESENTED BY
                         RANGE FOREST OFFICER
                         NUGU WILDLIFE RANGE
                         HOSABEERAVALU
                         H.D.KOTE TALUK - 571 114.
                                                              ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)

Digitally signed by   AND:
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH           MASTI
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                S/O LATE ANKA
                         AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
                         R/AT CHILAKAHALLI VILLAGE
                         NANJANGUD TALUK - 571 301.
                                                             ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY MISS AKSHATHA SHARMA, AMICUS CURIAE)


                           THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 377 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
                      MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:23.11.2013
                      PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN
                      S.C.No.111/13 - AND IMPOSE ADEQUATE SETNENCE ON THE
                      RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 86 OF KARNATAKA
                      FOREST ACT AND U/S 51 OF WILD LIFE PROTECTION OF 1972
                      AND ETC.,

                          THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
                      COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                             -2-
                                            NC: 2023:KHC:31428
                                      CRL.A No. 253 of 2014




                         JUDGMENT

The State has preferred this appeal seeking

modification of the sentence dated 25.11.2012 passed in

S.C. No. 111/2013 for the offence punishable under

Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short

hereinafter referred to as `Act, 1963') and Section 51 of

the Karnataka Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short

hereinafter referred to as `Act, 1972') and prays to

impose adequate sentence for the said offence.

2. Heard learned High Court Government Pleader for

the appellant - State and learned amicus curie for the

respondent.

3. Respondent - accused has been convicted for the

offence under Section 86 of the Act, 1963 and Section 51

of the Act, 1972. The respondent - accused has been

sentenced to under simple imprisonment for a period of

two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months

for offence under Section 86 of the Act, 1963, and to

NC: 2023:KHC:31428 CRL.A No. 253 of 2014

under to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and

to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of three months for offence

under Section 51 of the Act, 1972. The trial Court has

ordered both the sentences to run concurrently and

extended the benefit of set off under Section 428 of

Cr.P.C.

4. Learned HCGP would contend that the minimum

sentence provided for offence under Section 86 of the Act,

1963 is 5 years and the learned Sessions Judge has

imposed lesser than the minimum punishment. He further

submits that minimum fine is not less than Rs.50,000/-,

but the Sessions Court has imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- for

offence under Section 86 of the Act, 1963.

5. Learned amicus curie submits that the respondent

has already completed his sentence and now if sentence is

modified or enhanced, again he has to be taken into

custody to serve sentence which will be harsh and it will

be after 10 years of such judgment. She further submitted

NC: 2023:KHC:31428 CRL.A No. 253 of 2014

that what are to be considered while imposing sentence

has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra

reported in 2012 (2) SCC 648 wherein it is held as

under:

84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles; the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.

85. The principles of proportionality in sentencing a crime-doer is will entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of law,

NC: 2023:KHC:31428 CRL.A No. 253 of 2014

proportion between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crime-doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence.

6. Respondent who has also been convicted for

offence under Section 51 of the Act, 1972 has been

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and

to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. There is no minimum sentence

under Section 51 of the Act, 1972 and the sentence that

could be imposed for an offence under Section 51 of the

Act, 1972 is imprisonment for a term which may extend to

three years or with fine which may extend to twenty-five

thousand rupees or with both. Learned Sessions Judge has

exercised discretion and has imposed sentence of

imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the

offence under Section 51 of the Act, 1972. There are no

grounds made out for modification of the said sentence

imposed under Section 51 of the Act, 1972.

NC: 2023:KHC:31428 CRL.A No. 253 of 2014

7. Section 86 of the Act, 1963 reads thus:

86. Penalty for offence in regard to sandalwood.- In any case of a forest offence having reference to the cutting, uprooting, or removal or damage to, a sandal tree or any part of a sandal tree belonging to Government or to an occupant or holder of land or other person referred to in section 83, the offender shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.

Provided that,-

(i) in the case of first offence the term of imprisonment shall not be less than five years and the amount of fine shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees; and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence the term of imprisonment shall not be less than seven years and the amount of fine shall not be less than seventy five thousand rupees.

8. As per the first proviso, for the first offence the

term of imprisonment shall not be less than 5 years and

NC: 2023:KHC:31428 CRL.A No. 253 of 2014

the fine shall not be less than Rs.50,000/-. Learned

Sessions Judge has not considered the said proviso and

imposed lesser than the minimum sentence of

imprisonment and fine lesser than the minimum to be

imposed for the offence under Section 86 of the Act, 1963.

Therefore, the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions

Judge lesser than the minimum is erroneous. The State

has made out case for modification of the sentence.

Therefore, minimum sentence for offence under Sectiion