- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1532 CRL.P No. 102637 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102637 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: GURUMURTHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. KARGADDE, MAVINKERE, TQ. MUDGERE, DIST. CHIKKAMANGALURU-577124. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, BILKI, MANCHIKERI, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 27.11.2021 AND FURTHER PROCEEDING AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.5/PETITIONER AS IN MANCHIKERI FOREST RANGE BILKI CRIME NO.1/2019-20 WHICH IS REGISTERED IN CC NO.789/2021 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, AT MUNDGOD FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 84, 85, 86, 87, 71(A) OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.29 15:27:18 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1532 CRL.P No. 102637 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner/accused No. 5, who is sought to be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 84, 85, 86, 87, and 71(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, read with Rule 116 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, is before this Court. 2. The prosecution’s case is that the concerned Range Forest Officer (RFO) received credible information that certain individuals had illegally entered the Bilaki Branch of the Modanaki Beat Block, Compartment No. XXII, without any valid pass or permit, and cut down two sandalwood trees, transporting the same thereafter. Acting on the information, the RFO, along with his staff, visited the spot, recovered the sandalwood pieces, prepared a panchanama in the presence of witnesses, apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2, and subsequently lodged an FIR for the aforementioned offences. During the investigation, accused No. 2 allegedly confessed that he was working under accused No. 5 and committed the crime at his instance. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State. 4. A perusal of the charge sheet materials indicates that, except for the confession statement of accused No. 2—wherein he stated that the crime was committed at the instance of accused No. 5—there is no corroborative evidence to substantiate the allegation that accused No. 5 instigated accused Nos. 1 and 2 to commit the crime. No recovery was made from accused No. 5. It is well-settled - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1532 CRL.P No. 102637 of 2024 law that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be relied upon as evidence, as it has no evidentiary value under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, taking cognizance of the offences solely based on the confession statement of a co-accused is impermissible and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No. 789/2021, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, insofar as they relate to petitioner/accused No. 5, are quashed. The trial Court shall proceed against the other accused without being influenced by any observations made in this order. The observations made herein are solely for the purpose of the present petition. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as no longer requiring consideration. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20