( 1 ) THE State is aggrieved by the judgement of the Sessions Judge, Kodagu District, Madikeri acquitting the accused persons of the charges u/s 307 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that on 31-5-1987 at about 4 p. m. when PW-1 was going in Nagarahole Forest for bringing firewood, the two accused persons shared common intention of murdering PW-1 Javara and that in pursuance of that common intention A-1 fired a shot from M. O. 1-gun causing grievous injury to PW-1 and that A-1 had no license to possess the gun. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. The gist of the prosecution case as disclosed in the evidence is as hereunder :on 31-5-1987 at about 4 p. m. PW-1 went inside Nagarahole forest to bring firewood. A-1 and A-2 were in the forest and A-1 who was armed with a gun asked PW-1 to stop. But PW-1 started running. Then A-1 fired from the gun. PW-1 sustained injuries on his back and other parts of the body. PW-1 ran to his house and informed his brother PW-2 Dass who took him to PW-3 K. S. Uthappa, Mandal Pradhan. PW-3 took PW-1 to the police station in a car. The PSI, PW-7 recorded the complaint of PW-1 and then sent him to Virajpet Hospital where he was examined by PW-4, Dr. M. B. Vidyadhara. The doctor advised that the patient may be taken to a major hospital. On the same day PW-7 along with PW-3 and PW-5 went to the house of A-1 who produced MO. 1, gun. PW-7 seized the same. Thereafter in the company of A-1 they went to the forest. A-1 pointed out a place, where they found bloodstains on dried leaves. They also recovered a wad MO. 3 and MO. 4 empty cartridge. The bloodstained leaves were also seized at the spot. The gun as well as the wad were sent to PW-9 Scientic Officer along with empty cartridge MO. 4 and live cartridges. PW-9 after examining the weapon gave a report that the empty cartridge MO. 4 had been fired from that gun. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed. The accused have denied the entire prosecution case. The gun as well as the wad were sent to PW-9 Scientic Officer along with empty cartridge MO. 4 and live cartridges. PW-9 after examining the weapon gave a report that the empty cartridge MO. 4 had been fired from that gun. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed. The accused have denied the entire prosecution case. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has doubted the prosecution case that A-1 caused injuries by firing from M0. 1 gun and he has also found that the presence of PW-1 in the reserved forest was unauthorised. He has therefore acquitted both the accused persons. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader after taking us through the evidence adduced in the case contended that the material on record clearly establishes that PW-1 has sustained gun shot injuries and that A1 fired from a gun, that the evidence also shows that on the same day MO. 1 gun has been seized from his house and the wad MO. 3 and MO. 4 cartridges have been recovered at the scene of offence which was pointed out by A-1 and that under these circumstances there could have been no doubt that A-1 fired from the gun and caused grievous injuries to PW-1. ( 6 ) THE fact that PW-1 had sustained gunshot injuries on 31-5-1987 does not admit of serious doubt. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 as well as PW-3 the Mandal Pradhan shows that PW-1 had sustained bleeding injuries and he was taken to the hospital and he was examined by PW-4. PW-4 has stated that PW-1 had sustained multiple penetrating injuries in sternal region as well as back of the buttock and left fore arm and those injuries had been caused by pellets. He has opined that the injuries found on PW-1 could have been caused by gun fire. This opinion has not been challenged in the cross-examination. The very nature of the injuries shows that they must have been caused by pellets. The learned Sessions Judge has doubted as to whether the injuries could have been caused by pellets only on the ground that the doctor had not mentioned that the pettets were removed. It is seen that the doctor has stated that he advised the attendants of the patient to take him to major hospital. The learned Sessions Judge has doubted as to whether the injuries could have been caused by pellets only on the ground that the doctor had not mentioned that the pettets were removed. It is seen that the doctor has stated that he advised the attendants of the patient to take him to major hospital. His evidence does not show that he gave further treatment to the injured. No doubt the prosecution has not adduced further evidence regarding PW-1 being removed to a bigger hospital and the treatment which was given to him. But on that ground the evidence of PW-4 which clearly shows that PW-1 had sustained pellet injuries cannot be ignored. ( 7 ) PW-1 has mentioned before PW-2 as well as PW-3 immediately after the occurrence that A-1 had caused the injury by firing from a gun. On the same day the complaint is given by PW. 1 and it also refers to this fact. The evidence of PW-1 about the identity of the person who fired the gun has not been seriously challenged in the cross-examination. Only his identification of the gun M. O. 1 as the one which was tired by A-1, has been disputed. In fact a suggestion is put that to create scare, suspecting that he was a trespasser and smuggler of sandalwood and a poacher, the gun was fired and that the gun was not fired at him. As such there cannot be serious doubt that A-1 has fired a shot from the gun. With regard to the identity of the gun used by A-1, the evidence of PWs. 3, 5 and 7 shows that on the same day when they went to the house of A 1, MO. 1 gun was produced by him and later at the spot pointed out by A-1 dried leaves having bloodstains and MO. 3 wad and MO. 4 empty cartridge were recovered. The evidence of the scientific officer shows that that empty cartridge had been fired from MO. 1 gun. As such there can be no doubt even about the identity of the gun used by A-1. ( 8 ) THE main point that requires consideration is whether on the facts established, A-1 could be prosecuted or held guilty of any offence. The evidence of the scientific officer shows that that empty cartridge had been fired from MO. 1 gun. As such there can be no doubt even about the identity of the gun used by A-1. ( 8 ) THE main point that requires consideration is whether on the facts established, A-1 could be prosecuted or held guilty of any offence. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted A-2 as there was absolutely no evidence against him and even this appeal is admitted only with regard to the charge against A1 and the acquittal of A-2 has not been allowed to be questioned. ( 9 ) IT is admitted by PW-1 that on that day he had gone to the forest to collect firewood and that he had not taken any permission. It is also undisputed that Nagarahole Forest where this incident took place is a reserved forest and anyone who wants to go inside the forest requires the permission of the forest authorities. PW-1 himself admits that he knew that nobody can go inside the reserved forest for the purpose of collecting firewood and that even to enter the forest permission is required. PW-10 who is the Range Forest Officer has also stated that Nagarahole Game Sanctuary is a National Park and that to enter that sanctuary one has to possess permit and that the area is a prohibited area. It is undisputed that A-1 is a forest guard and he is working as watch-ward staff. On the date of the incident admittedly when A-1 along with his colleague was on his duty inside the forest, PW-1 had gone there and according to him it was for the purpose of collecting firewood. Even collection of firewood inside the forest without permission would be a forest offence. It is admitted by PW-1 that on seeing him A-1 called out to him to stop and that however he started running. It is at that stage A-1 has fired a shot. It is admitted by PW-1 that there is no misunderstanding between him and A-1. It has come out in the evidence of PW-10 that on 31-5-87 itself, he had flashed wireless message about someone having tired at a male elephant and causing injury to it in Kallalla range of Nagarahole forest and that that elephant had to be traced, as the poachers would take away the ivory from that elephant. It has come out in the evidence of PW-10 that on 31-5-87 itself, he had flashed wireless message about someone having tired at a male elephant and causing injury to it in Kallalla range of Nagarahole forest and that that elephant had to be traced, as the poachers would take away the ivory from that elephant. This evidence shows that on that very day someone had fired at an elephant, injured it and that elephant was missing and they had to trace that elephant to prevent poachers stealing the ivory. It is in those circumstances when PW-1 who had gone inside the forest failed to stop in spite of a call given by A-1 and started running, A-1 has fired a shot. PW-1 himself admits that others used to enter the reserve forest for theft of Firewood, honey and other forest products. In view of the conduct of PW-1 in trying to run away when he was called to stop, A-1 in good faith and bona fide has fired a shot from a distance to apprehend him. ( 10 ) SECTION 76 of the Karnataka Forest Act stipulates that every Forest Officer and Police Officer shall prevent and may interfere for the purpose of preventing the commission of any forest offence. Section 2 (6) which defines Forest Officer shows that even a Forest Guard or Forest Watcher would be a Forest Officer. ( 11 ) SECTION 114 of the Act reads as hereunder :indemnity for acts done in good faith :-No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any Forest Officer for anything done or omitted to be done by him in good faith under this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder. ( 12 ) IN the present case the material on record clearly shows that the first accused in good faith has fired a shot at PW-1 who admittedly had gone inside the forest to commit a forest offence, namely, of collecting firewood and in the background of the fact that an elephant had been tired and injured in the forest and there was an apprehension that poachers would steal the ivory and efforts were being made to trace that elephant. This is a case to which Section 114 of the Karnataka Forest Act would be applicable. This is a case to which Section 114 of the Karnataka Forest Act would be applicable. The learned Government Pleader was unable to state as to how the prosecution could be maintained in view of Section 114 of the Act and in the light of the undisputed facts. Patently A-1 had not intended to murder PW-1 and the act that he has done is only in bona fide discharge of his duties as a forest guard. He has first called upon PW-1 to stay and only when he started running he has fired a shot. He has taken necessary care and caution before tiring the shot. As such it cannot be said that there was want of good faith on his part. In the circumstances we do not think that A-1 could he held guilty of the charge u/s. 307. IPC. ( 13 ) SO far as the charge under Arms Act is concerned, PW. 10 the Forest Officer has clearly stated that as per the Government Order, for protection of this Sanctuary, Forest Officials including the Forester and Forest Guard are not required to obtain licence to keep firearms or to use the firearms. Section 45 of the Arms Act provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to the acquisition, possession or carrying of arms or ammunition by a public servant in the course of his duty as such public servant. Under the Forest Act a Forest Guard would also be a public servant, he cannot be held to have committed an offence under the Arms Act by possessing a gun or using it in discharge of official duties. Thus in any view of the matter we do not find any good grounds to interfere with the judgement of the trial Court. ( 14 ) FOR the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .