- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18562 CRL.RP No. 609 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.609 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI DASA S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A KAPPAINAKATTE HADI HANAGODU HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 105 2. SRI SURESHA S/O LATE SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT BHARATHAVADI VILLAGE HANAGODU HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 105 3. SRI SHIVAIAH S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT BHARATHAVADI VILLAGE HANAGODU HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 105 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI P.M.GOPI FOR SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA P M, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18562 CRL.RP No. 609 of 2018 AND: STATE BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER HUNSUR RANGE FOREST HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT PIN CODE-571 105 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 16.06.2015 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HUNSUR IN C.C.NO.510/2012 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.04.2018 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, SITTING AT HUNSUR IN CRL.A.NO.145/2015 AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED/PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 38(v), 48,48(A), 49, 49(B), 50, 51, 57 OF WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri P.M.Gopi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Accused persons who have been convicted in C.C No.510/ 2012 dated 16.06.2015 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunasuru, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18562 CRL.RP No. 609 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten months which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.145/2015 dated 19.04.2018 by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunasuru, are the revision petitioners. 3. Assistant Conservator of Forest, Hunasuru Sub Division, after investigating the complaint against the accused persons, filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 38V, 48, 48A, 49, 49B, 50, 51 and 57 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. 4. Facts which led to the filing of the charge sheet are as under: 4.1 On 18.09.2012 revision petitioners were found transporting ivory (tusk) piece on Hunasuru-Nagarhole Main Road running from Bharathavadi, situated within Rajiv Gandhi National Park, a notified Veeranahosalli Reserve Forest area, in Hunasuru Taluk, Hanagodu Hobli. On receipt of such a credible - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18562 CRL.RP No. 609 of 2018 information, raid was conducted and accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended by the raid team. 4.2 On enquiry, they revealed their names. Ivory (tusk) piece marked at M.O-1 was recovered under seizure panchanama. Accused No.3 managed to escape away from the clutches of the raid party. His name was revealed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 as Shivaiah. Accused Nos.1 and 2 also took out the names of Kalinga and Ravi, accused Nos.4 and 5. They also revealed that the ivory(tusk) piece marked at MO-1 was extracted from the dead elephant and it was divided among accused Nos.1, 4 and 5. MO-1 had fallen to the share of accused No.1 who had taken the help of accused Nos.2 and 3 for selling M.O-1. 4.3 Admittedly, accused persons did not possess any license to hold and possess M.O.1. Therefore, a case was registered in Crime No.7/2012-13. On detailed enquiry and investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 5. Presence of accused Nos.1 to 3 was secured. Since the presence of accused Nos.4 to 5 could not be secured, split-up - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18562 CRL.RP No. 609 of 2018 charge sheet was ordered to be filed against the accused Nos.4 and 5. 6. On taking cognizance, learned Trial Magistrate complied the mandatory requirements of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter framed the charges for the aforesaid offences. 7. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution proceeded to examine seven witnesses as PW-1 to P.W-7, and placed on record six documentary evidence, which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-6 besides marking MO-1 as aforesaid. 9. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, incriminatory circumstances found against the accused persons were culled out from the testimony of prosecution witnesses and they were put to the accused as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18562 CRL.RP No. 609 of 2018 10. Accused persons have all denied the incriminatory circumstances, but did not choose to offer any explanation whatsoever to the incriminatory circumstances. They did not choose to lead any defence evidence, either. 11. During the course of cross-examination, contradictory statement elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 was marked as Exhibit D-1. 12. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and by the judgment dated 16.06.2015 convicted the accused persons and sentenced as referred to supra. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, accused persons filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.145/ 2015. 14. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re- appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18562 CRL.RP No. 609 of 2018 15. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused persons are before this Court. 16. Sri P.M.Gopi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that, both the Courts have grossly erred in convicting the revision petitioners for the aforesaid offences and wrongly sentenced them, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 17. He would further contend that the mahazar is a concocted mahazar. The certificate marked at Exhibit P-3 is not from a qualified person. Therefore, M.O-1 cannot be treated as tusk within the meaning of the provisions of Wildlife (Protection) Act and as such, seizure of MO-1 cannot be considered to have been seized under Exhibit P-1 to convict the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition. 18. He also pointed out that Exhibits P-4 and P-5 which are the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be read in evidence as it has been extracted under force and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18562 CRL.RP No. 609 of 2018 coercion. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioners is improper and sought for allowing the revision petition. 19. Per contra Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, would support the impugned judgments. 20. He would further contend that MO-1 is not freely available in the general public for the purpose of implanting the same to get an order of conviction recorded against the accused persons, in the absence of any previous enmity or animosity nurtured by PW-1 against the accused persons. 21. Therefore, Exhibit P-1 being the seizure mahazar has been established by placing cogent evidence on record and thus the order of conviction is just and proper. 22. He would further contend that in a matter of this nature, accused is bound to place their version on record, especially, if there is a plea of false implication, since the accused persons have denied all the allegations and incriminatory circumstances. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18562 CRL.RP No. 609 of 2018 23. Accused persons did not choose to place any explanation or their version about the incident. Therefore, learned Trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court were justified in recording an order of conviction and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 24. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 25. On such perusal of the material on record, seizure of M.O-1 under Exhibit P-1 stands established by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. 26. PW-1 in his testimony specifically stated that he received the credible information that somebody is transporting the tusk in Bharathavadi road on Hunasuru Nagarahole Main Road on 18.09.2012 within the limits of notified Veeranahosalli Forest Area. 27. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended by the raid team whereas, accused No.3 managed to escape from the clutches of the raid team. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18562 CRL.RP No. 609 of 2018 28. Admittedly, PW-1 did not possess any previous enmity or animosity against the accused persons to falsely implicate them in the offence. Name of the third accused was revealed by accused Nos.1 and 2. So also, voluntary statement given by them is recorded by the head of the raid team being the Investigation Officer vide Exhibits P-4 and P-5. 29. These aspects of the matter coupled with the seizure of the M.O.1 which has been certified by the competent person and issued Exhibit P-3 would be sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction in the absence of proper explanation and license possessed by the accused Nos.1 to 3. 30. Admittedly accused Nos.4 and 5 were not available for trial. Therefore, split up charge sheet came to be filed. 31. It is the specific case of the prosecution that MO-1 and some more pieces of the tusk were extracted from the dead elephant by the accused persons including the absconding accused viz., Kalinga and Ravi. Later, it was distributed among accused No.1, Kalinga and Ravi. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18562 CRL.RP No. 609 of 2018 32. The portion of tusk that has fallen to the share of accused No.1 was sought to be transported to city area and wanted to be sold with the aid of accused Nos.2 and 3 is found from the material evidence on record. 33. Minor contradictions elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 marked at Exhibit D-1 did not cause any serious dent to the case of the prosecution either. 34. Without a proper licence, possession of MO-1 by accused No.1 and 2, they being apprehended by the raid party, later on accused No.3 appearing before the Court after obtaining the anticipatory bail, would be sufficient enough to sustain the order of conviction for the aforesaid offences. 35. The learned Trial Magistrate, after recording the order of conviction, has imposed minimum punishment as is prescribed under the statute. Therefore there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the order of sentence as well. 36. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly re- appreciated the material evidence on record and following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18562 CRL.RP No. 609 of 2018 Rajasthan versus Thakur Singh reported in (2014)12 SCC 211 has upheld the order of conviction which requires no interference by this Court. 37. This Court does not find any ground whatsoever much less good ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgments of both the Courts. 38. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) Revision Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 28th April 2026 for serving the remaining part of the sentence. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78