Case No. – 212 of 2007
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH: Hon’ble Mr. C.V. Sirpurkar J.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 27 October 2015
RELEVANT ACTS/SECTIONS:
Section 9 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Prohibition for hunting)
Section 29 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Destruction, etc., in a sanctuary prohibited without a permit)
Section 39 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Wild animals, etc., to be Government property)
Section 51 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Penalties)
Section 57of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Presumption to be made in certain cases)
Section 25 of Arms Act 1959 (Punishment for certain offences)
Section 27 of Arms Act 1959 (Punishment for using Arms, etc.)
Section 30 of Arms Act 1959 (Punishment for Contravention of license or rule)
Section 373 of Cr.P.C. 1973 (Appeal from orders requiring security or refusal to accept or rejecting surety for keeping the peace or good behaviour)
BACKSTORY
This case had been filled on an application under section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, documented for the benefit of candidate the judgment of quittance dated 15.9.2006 passed by the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No. 26/2005, whereby the conviction and sentence dated 5.2.2005 recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur went in Criminal Case No. 505/1996, was saved and respondent/blamed people Zakir, Islam, Ishaq, and Shameem were acquitted of the charges culpable under different arrangements of the Wild Life Protection Act and the Arms Act.
Station House Officer of P.S. Shahgarh got information from a witness on 12.10.1996 that a few hunters had entered the forest and had gone towards Shahgarh to hunting wild animals. SHO P.S. Thakur came to Gorai trifurcating alongside the police party. At around 5.30 a.m., they saw accused person/respondents coming towards them on a bike and a scooter. The charged people were blocked and meat in bag trickling with blood alongside a double-barrel firearm, pellets, caps, knife, a bike, and light were cooped from their possessions. During the examination, it was found out that meat belonging to the blue bull. Therefore, a charge sheet under sections 9, 29, 39, and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, and sections 25/27 and 30 of the Arms Act was documented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate.
Dr. U.S. Saxena who has analyzed the heart, kidney, windpipe, and meat of the animals had quite recently imparted a concern that recently referenced organs had a spot with a wild animal and he didn’t offer any unequivocal articulation that they point of fact had a spot with a wild animal. Official Karan Singh had also analyzed the meat gotten by him and had recognized it as that having a spot with a blue bull and hair clung to the bits of meat. but there was no notification in the seizure notice that any bits of meat had conceal and hair stuck upon them and had from the outset suggested that the bits of meat be sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory.
So, in aforesaid conditions, in the assessment of, learned Appellate Court had considered that the material against the accused people on record in was aggregate and had valued the evidence. From that point, assigning detailed reasons had absolved the accused people/respondents. In that way, no impedance in the judgment of acquittal was justified.
FORENSIC FINDINGS
Forensic experts analyzed the meat and confirmed that the questioned sample of meat belonged to a blue bull, who is a wild animal and comes under schedule animal’s list of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
JUDGEMENT
It was held that the application for leave to claim against acquittal has the right to be and was accordingly dismissed.