Case No. – 301845/2016
DELHI DISTRICT COURT
BENCH: Hon’ble Sh. Pawan Singh Rajawat J.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 11 April 2018
RELEVANT ACTS/SECTIONS:
Section 2 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Destroying or taking any body part of any animal)
Section 9 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Prohibition for hunting)
Section 39 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Wild animals, etc., to be Government property)
Section 49B of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Prohibition of dealings in trophies, animal articles etc. derived from scheduled animals)
Section 51 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Punishment for any person who contravened any provisions with an imprisonment of not less than 7 years)
Section 52 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Attempts and abatements)
Section 57of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Presumption to be made in certain cases)
Section 313of Cr.P.C. (Power to examine the accused)
BACKSTORY
The information was given by Sh. V.B. Dasan to the Inspector Vivek Tyagi of Special Cell of Delhi police accused persons named Ashok Kumar, Nandhu, and Naresh Kumar, which has been said that the accused mentioned above was arrested with a baby leopard skin having brown colour and black spots. It is mentioned that a raiding team headed by Vivek Tyagi including two SI, one ASI and two HC with the informer viral to Birla Mandir Red Light, Kali Bari Marg, New Delhi and according to the informer it was said that they were coming in an Indica car having a registration number HR-55 DT-6580 driven by Naresh Kumar and the others were sitting behind the car and the officers started dealing for the skin with Ashok Kumar and Ashok Kumar replied that he was having three leopard skin with him and they only bought one skin with them and the other two are with his friends. The accused said an amount of 8 lakhs for the skin and Naresh Kumar took out a polythene bag and handed it over to Ashok Kumar which was having the leopard skin. Then they were arrested after the signal by HC Pradeep Kumar, the accused persons were interrogated and they were not having any legal documents or any authority to possess or keep the skin and the skin was seized and FIR (35/2010) was filed. It was alleged that the seized skin is a scheduled animal according to the wildlife protection act 1972.
To prove the allegation, the complainant examined five witnesses including HC Pradeep, IO Vivek Tyagi, SI Yudhbeer Singh, and V.B Dasan in pre-charge evidence. After completion of the statement of the post-charge evidence of accused recorded u/s 313 9f Cr.P.C and the accused denied about the same and said that they charged the case falsely. One of the accused said that he was. Selling socks in the roadside and a car stopped near him then they took him to the police station and didn’t even say for which offence he was arrested.
Ld. Counsel for the accused persons argued that. All the witnesses are the police officers and there were no other public witnesses, so their testimony alone shouldn’t be held sufficient for convicting the accused person for various contradictions regarding the identity of the vehicles of the raiding team. They also said that no photos or seal impressions were produced. Counsel said that Naresh Kumar is a taxi driver and was not aware of anything transpired between this case. AS the contradictions pointed in the testimony witnesses were concerned, minor discrepancies are bound to occur due to lapse of time. And it won’t through away the case of the prosecution because the prosecution witnesses remain in the same word which has been said before about the findings of the baby leopard. They said that the law on this issue is well settled. And the court examined the prosecution’s evidence carefully to find out whether the evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable.
JUDGEMENT
It was held that the accused named Ashok Kumar, Nandhu, and Naresh Kumar were proven guilty for dealing with the baby leopard skin for trade. The accused persons had contravened the provision of section 49 of the act and they were punishable under section 51 of the wildlife protection act 1972 and any case property be confiscated to the state under section 39 of Wildlife Protection Act.