Bangalore District Court
S D Shashidar Pi vs Vittal Toreshettahalli on 19 July, 2025
1 C.C.No.15138/2016
KABC030404152016
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 19th day of July 2025
PRESENT : SRI.SAHEEL AHMED S. KUNNIBHAVI, B.Com., LL.B.
(Spl.)
II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.Sl. No. of the case C.C.No.15138/2016 Date of commission of the
2. 07.08.2015 offences (As per F.I.R.) Basavanagudi Police
3. Name of the complainant Station, Bengaluru City
1. Vittal. (Split-Up)
2. Chethan. (Split-Up)
3. Shashidhar, S/o Shambegowda,
4. Name of the accused Aged about 34 years, R/at Sparana Samudra Guttal Post, Mandya Taluk & District.
4. Prasanna. (Split-Up) 2 C.C.No.15138/2016 Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49(C) and 51 of Wild Life Protection The offences complained
5. Act, Sections 41(D) and 102 of of Cr.P.C. and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Accused No.3 is acquitted
8. Date of order 19.07.2025 The Sub-Inspector of Police of Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru has filed Police Report against accused No.1 to 4 alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49(C) and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, Sections 41(D) and 102 of Cr.P.C. and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the Prosecution that on 07.08.2015 at about 8.20 p.m. CW1 Mr.Shashidhar, PI of Basavanagudi had got the information that two persons were illegally selling the Elephant tusks near Lalbagh West Gate. Immediately he had secured CW5 to CW8 and panchas CW2 and CW3 and had been to the place of incident. CW5 was sent to the accused to confirm whether the accused were really trying to 3 C.C.No.15138/2016 sell the Tusks. CW5 had confirmed and as per his gesture, CW1 along with other police officials caught hold these accused with the Elephant Tusks. They have not produced either the license or permit to sell the Elephant Tusks. CW1 has conducted panchanama in the presence of panchas and lodged the information against these accused.
3. Based on the First Information of CW1, the crime was registered in Crime No.276/2015 at Basavanagudi Police Station. Accused No.3 and 4 were arrested and produced before this Court and enlarged on bail on 12.08.2015. Thereafter accused No.4 was absconding. Accused No.1 and 2 were also absconding. The presence of accused No.1, 2 and 4 could not be secured, hence as per order dated 07.10.2021 the case against them was ordered for Split Up and separate criminal case in C.C.No.30935/2021 was registered. On completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru City filed Police Report. My Predecessor has taken cognizance of the said offences, the process was issued to accused No.3. The copies 4 C.C.No.15138/2016 of the Police Report and other prosecution papers are furnished to accused No.3 under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, since there were grounds for presuming that accused No.3 has committed the offences triable by this Court, charges for the offence has been framed and read over to him in Kannada language. He has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. To prove the charges framed against accused No.3, the Prosecution has produced the oral evidences of PW1 to PW4 and documentary evidences as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. After completion of the prosecution evidences, for the purpose of enabling accused No.3 personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidences of the Prosecution against him, examined him under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has submitted that he has no defense evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused No.3. Perused the materials available on record. 5 C.C.No.15138/2016
6. The points for determination are;
1. Whether prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.3 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49(C) and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, Sections 41(D) and 102 of Cr.P.C. and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code?
2. What order or sentence?
7. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 :- It is the case of the Prosecution that accused No.3 along with the split up accused No.1, 2 and 4 were caught hold with Elephant Tusks when they were trying to sell for their illegal gains.
9. To prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined CW2/PW1 Shashidhar, PI of Basavanagudi has deposed that on 07.08.2015 at about 8.20 p.m. when he was 6 C.C.No.15138/2016 in his Office, had got the information that some persons were illegally selling the Elephant tusks near Lalbagh West Gate. Immediately he had secured CW5 to CW8 and panchas CW2 and CW3 and had been to the place of incident. CW5 was sent to the accused to confirm whether the accused were really trying to sell the Tusks. CW5 had confirmed and as per his gesture, CW1 along with other police officials caught hold these accused with the Elephant Tusks. They have not produced either the license or permit to sell the Elephant Tusks. He has conducted panchanama in the presence of panchas and lodged the information against these accused.
10. To prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined CW4/PW3 Dr.Surendra who has issued the Certificate by examining the Elephant Tusks as per Ex.P3.
11. To prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined CW3/PW1 Manjunath, who is the witness to the panchanama has turned hostile.
7 C.C.No.15138/2016
12. To prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined CW10/PW4, Rajashekharaiah B.C., who is an Investigation Officer has deposed that on 07.08.2015 at about 8.20 p.m. when CW1 was in his Office, had got the information that some persons were illegally selling the Elephant tusks near Lalbagh West Gate. Immediately CW1 had secured CW5 to CW8 and panchas CW2 and CW3 and along with them he had been to the place of incident. CW5 was sent to the accused to confirm whether the accused were really trying to sell the Tusks. CW5 had confirmed and as per his gesture, these accused were caught hold with the Elephant Tusks. They have not produced either the license or permit to sell the Elephant Tusks. CW1 has conducted panchanama in the presence of panchas and CW1 has lodged the information against these accused. He has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused and after due investigation he has filed the Final Report against these accused.
8 C.C.No.15138/2016
13. It is the case of the Prosecution that these accused were caught hold with the Elephant Tusks when they were trying to sell to the public for their illegal gains. After due investigation the Final Report was submitted against these accused. It is the case of the Prosecution that CW1 Police Inspector has seized the Elephant Tusks from the possession of the accused. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior APP has argued and relied the evidences of CW1, CW3 and CW10 that the said Elephant Tusks were seized from the possession of the accused. The accused were trying to sell illegally for their unlawful gains. CW1, CW3 and CW10 have consistently deposed that on 07.08.2015 they had been to the place of Lalbagh West Gate, MNKRV Road wherein CW5 Police Constable had been to the accused in disguise of purchaser. This CW5 had sent gesture and on the said gesture all the officials had been to the accused and caught hold red hand. They have seized the said Elephant Tusks. Further, the prosecution has argued that the said Elephant Tusks were seized and the accused shall be severely be punished.
9 C.C.No.15138/2016
14. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused has argued that for the statics, the case was register against the accused. All the witnesses are official witnesses and a false case was registered against the accused. No independent witnesses were taken either at the time of seizing of the said Elephant Tusks nor during the course of investigation. The Investigation Officer in his investigation has not at all narrated where this Elephant Tusks were taken by these accused. But, the Investigation Officer has not investigated where this Elephant Tusks were taken by these accused for their sale. Further, the learned Counsel for the accused has argued that CW1 has not at all taken any photographs nor recorded any video at the time of seizing the property which creates doubt whether the said Elephant Tusks were really seized from the accused.
15. It is on record that all the witnesses examined by the Prosecution are Official Witnesses. Though there are no reasons to deny the contention of the Official Witnesses, but, however the learned counsel for the accused has argued that 10 C.C.No.15138/2016 false case was registered against these accused. The investigation officer has not at all recovered the said Elephant Tusks from the accused.
16. The independent witnesses would mean that they do not have any interest in the result of the case and is not even closely related to the party in trial and he is not concerned with the failure or success of the case. When there is allegation of regular panchas and Elephant Tusks were not seized from the possession of the accused. Was it not the duty of the prosecution to examine the independent witness?. Further the Honorable Supreme Court of India in case of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has pleased to held that-
"Panchnama is a document having legal bearings which records evidence and findings that an officer makes at the scene of an offence/crime. However, it is not only the recordings of the scene of crime but also of anywhere else which may be related to the crime/offence and from where incriminating evidence is 11 C.C.No.15138/2016 likely to be collected. The document so prepared needs to be signed by the investigating officer who prepares the same and at least by two independent and impartial witnesses called 'Panchas' as also by the concerned party. The witnesses are required to be not only impartial but also 'respectable'. 'Respectable' here would mean a person who is not dis-reputed. One should also check if the witnesses are in their senses at the time of panchanama proceedings. Only majors are to be taken as witnesses as minors witness my not withstand the legal scrutiny."
The Honorable Supreme Court has pleased even held that the panchas are must be from repudiated family and he shall not be any dis-reputed person. The prosecution has contended that the Investigation Officer has tried to get the independent witness but at least the Investigation Officer has to produce copy of the Notice to show that they have tried to get the independent witnesses. Further, the Prosecution has examined only the official witnesses and though they have 12 C.C.No.15138/2016 deposed consistently, but, the Investigation Officer even has not seized the said alleged bike which was used by the accused to sell the said Elephant Tusks nor the Investigation Officer has taken any photographs of the incident. Further, the Investigation Officer has not at all produced any document to show that to whom the said bike was belongs and whether they have released the said property in favour of the accused or to the owner. The Prosecution has to collect the events or sequences and circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The chain of evidence that points strongly towards the guilt of the accused without giving a little room of explanation of innocence is relevant when the case was totally based on official witnesses. Further, the matter is pending since 2016 and the prosecution is able to examined only three witnesses out of ten to prove the guilt of the accused. My Predecessor has dropped all these witnesses after issuing NBW and proclamation. Under these circumstances, I am holding that the Prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49(C) 13 C.C.No.15138/2016 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, Sections 41(D) and 102 of Cr.P.C. and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
17. POINT No.2 :- For the reasons stated in Point No.1, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused No.3 for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the accused No.3 is not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49(C) and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, Sections 41(D) and 102 of Cr.P.C. and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDERS Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.3 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49(C) and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, Sections 41(D) and 102 of Cr.P.C. and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
His bail bond and surety bond will be canceled after appeal period.14 C.C.No.15138/2016
Office is hereby directed to keep the entire file with Split up Criminal Case of accused No.1, 2 and 4.
(Typed by the Stenographer in the Court Computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on 19.07.2025) (SAHEEL AHMED.S.KUNNIBHAVI) II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution :-
PW1 : Manjunath,
PW2 : Shashidhar S.D.,
PW3 : Dr.Surendra Varma,
PW4 : Rajashekharaiah B.C.
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
Ex.P1 : Spot Mahazar,
Ex.P1(a) & (b) : Signatures,
Ex.P2 : Police Report,
Ex.P2(a) & (b) : Signatures.
Ex.P3 : IISC Letter,
Ex.P3(a) : Signature.
15 C.C.No.15138/2016
Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL Witnesses Examined on behalf of the accused :-
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the accused :-
NIL II ACJM, Bengaluru City.