Bangalore District Court
State By Sanjaynagara P.S vs Is Acquitted on 1 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 1st Day of February 2021
Present: Sri.Jayaprakash D.R, B.A.LL.M.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.21664/2009
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 21664/2009
2. The date of commission 21/05/2009
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant State by Sanjaynagara P.S.
4. Name of the accused Nanjappa s/o Vadamalai,
aged 40 years, r/at Pannati
Patti, Anchatti Post, Denkani
Kote Taluk, Krishnagiri Taluk,
Tamil Nadu.
5. The offence complained of U/s. 9, 39, 40, 49(B)(c), 51, 54
or proved the Wild Life Protection Act
and 379 of IPC
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
2 C.C.No.21664/2009
7. Final Order Acting U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.
accused is acquitted
8. Date of such order 01022021
For the following:
JUDGMENT
This case is arising out of charge sheet submitted by the Police SubInspector of Sanjaynagara PS against the accused for an offence Punishable U/s. 9, 39, 40, 49(B)(c), 51, 54 the Wild Life Protection Act and 379 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
On 21052009 at about 8.15 a.m., near Hebbal fly over accused was found in possession of Leopard skin and was attempting to sell the same illegally. CW1 to 5 have apprehended him and seized leopard skin from the accused. Hence, it is alleged that the accused has committed offences 3 C.C.No.21664/2009 u/s 9, 39, 40, 49(B)(C), 51, 54 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Section 379 of IPC.
3. The accused was arrested and produced before the court on 21052009 and he was remanded to Judicial Custody and he was enlarged on bail on 26052009. After registering the case, in pursuance of summons the accused has appeared before the Court. The provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. was complied by furnishing charge sheet and its enclosures to the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined 4 witnesses and got marked 2 documents and one material object in its favour. In spite of repeated issuance of process to CW1, 6 to 11, the prosecution has failed to secure their presence. Hence, they were dropped from examination. CW4 is given up by the 4 C.C.No.21664/2009 prosecution. The provision u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was complied by recording the statement of accused. The accused denied the incriminating evidence against him and submitted that he has got no defence evidence.
5. Heard arguments of both sides.
6. From the material available on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 21052009 at about 8.15 a.m., near Hebbal fly over accused was found in possession of Leopard skin and was attempting to sell the same illegally and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.9, 39, 40, 49(B)(C), 51, 54 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Section 379 of IPC?
2. What order?5 C.C.No.21664/2009
7. Upon appreciation of evidence and hearing arguments my findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following:
REAS ONS
8. Point No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that on 2105 2009 at about 8.15 a.m., near Hebbal fly over accused was found in possession of Leopard skin and was attempting to sell the same illegally. CW1 to 5 have apprehended him and seized leopard skin from the accused. Hence, it is alleged that the accused has committed offences u/s 9, 39, 40, 49(B)(C), 51, 54 of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972 & u/s 379 of IPC.
9. In order to prove the allegation against the accused prosecution has examined in all 4 witnesses. PW1 to 3 are the 6 C.C.No.21664/2009 police officials who have accompanied CW1 while conducting raid on the accused. PW4 is the Range Forest Officer who has received leopard skin and issued receipt at Ex.P1.
10. In order to prove the allegation against the accused at the first prosecution has to prove that the material object seized from the accused is the skin of leopard. Secondly, the prosecution has to prove that the said leopard skin was seized from the possession of the accused.
11. According to prosecution CW9 has examined the same and issued certificate stating that the said skin is the skin of leopard. However, CW9 is not secured and examined by the prosecution and said certificate is also not marked in the present case. In the absence of opinion of the expert and non marking of said certificate, it cannot be held that so called material object produced in this case is the skin of leopard. 7 C.C.No.21664/2009
12. According to prosecution case after conducting the raid they have found that the accused was in possession of leopard skin and same was seized under a mahazar. PW1 to 3 in their evidence have stated that the accused was in possession of leopard skin. However, in this case said mahazar is not proved by the examining panch witnesses or by examining Investigating Officer. Said mahazar is also not marked as an Exhibit. Even otherwise, the mahazar which is on record shows that the time in the same mahazar is erased with whitener and timings is over written showing the timings of mahazar as 8.25 a.m., to 9.10 a.m. However, PW1 to 3 in their evidence have stated that they have reached the spot at 8.30 a.m., and they have sent CW3 near the accused and confirmed the attempt of the accused to sell the said skin and after receiving signal from CW3 they have conducted the raid. If the said version is presumed to be true then there was no chance 8 C.C.No.21664/2009 on the part of the investigating agency to commence drawing of seizure mahazar at 8.25 a.m. Therefore, serious doubt arises with respect to seizing of so called skin of leopard from the possession of the accused and same assumes importance due to non examination of panch witnesses to the seizure mahazar.
13. In view of the above discussion even though PW1 to 3 who are the police officials have given evidence in support of prosecution case, same is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offences.
14. In view of the above discussion prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused has committed the offences alleged against him. Accordingly, I answer point no.1 in the negative.
9 C.C.No.21664/2009
15. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 9, 39, 40, 49(B)(c), 51, 54 the Wild Life Protection Act and 379 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands canceled after the appeal period.
Material object MO1 is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over. In this regard office is directed to issue direction to the Forest Department to destroy MO1.
(Dictated to the stenographer computerised by her, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 1st day of February 2021.) (Jayaprakash D.R.) VIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore.10 C.C.No.21664/2009
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Syed Akhil Pasha PW2 : Venkatesh PW3 : Srinivasamurthy PW4 : Ravi C.
2. Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Acknowledgement Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW4 Ex.P2 : Photo
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL
5. Material Object:
MO1 : Leopard Skin VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore 11 C.C.No.21664/2009 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 9, 39, 40, 49(B)(c), 51, 54 the Wild Life Protection Act and 379 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands canceled after the appeal period.
Material object MO1 is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over. In this regard office is directed to issue direction to the Forest Department to destroy MO1.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore