Melghat Tiger Poaching Case Judgement

- 1 - Judgment in RCC No.
477/2013
Presented on : 14.05.2013.
Registered on : 14.05.2013.
Decided on : 18.06.2014.
Duration : 1-Y.1 -M. 4-D.
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
A M R A V AT I.
(Presided over by Jayant N. Raje)
Reg. Cri. Case No. 477/2013. Exhibit -
Assistant Conservator of Forest, Dhakna,
Gugamal Wildl Life Division,
Melghat Tiger Project, Paratwada,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati. Complainant.
Versus,
1. Madhusingh s/o Leharsingh Rathod,
aged about 30 years, Occ.-Labour,
2. Chintaram s/o Leharsingh Rathod,
3. Vinod s/o Premlal Pawar,
4. Sagarlal s/o Gorelal Pawar,
Nos. 1 to 4 R/o Sinband (Mothakheda),
Tq. Chikhaldara, District Amravati,
5. Narvilal Ruchlesingh Pawar,
R/o Sawalikheda, Tq. Chikhaldara,
- 2 - Judgment in RCC No. 477/2013
District Amravati.
6. Mishrilal Jugdya Chauhan
aged about 43 years, Occ.- Rationsingh
Shop R/o Mothakheda, Tq. Chikhaldara,
District Amravati. ... Accused.
Shri U.S. Deshmukh, Special Prosecutor for the Complainant.
Shri A.R. Phuse, Advocate for the accused Nos. 1 to 5.
Shri P.V. Mahalle, Advocate for the accused No.6.
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SECs. 51(1), 51(1C) and 51(1D) OF
THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 18
th
day of June, 2014)
Accused are prosecuted by the Assistant
Conservator of Forest, Gugamal Wildlife Division, Melghat Tiger
Project, Paratwada, District- Amravati, for contravention of provisions
of Secs. 9, 27, 29, 30, 31, 39(3) punishable U/secs. 51(1), 51(1C) and
51(1D) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
2. In brief, the case of prosecution is as under :
That, Melghat Tiger Project consists of three
wildlife divisions namely, Gugamal Wildlife Division, Sipna Wildlife
Division and Akot Wildlife Division. There are three forest range in
Gugamal Wildlife Division. They are, Dhakna, Harisal and
Chikhaldara. The entire Melghat Tiger Reserve is having area of
2029 Sq. K.M. including core forest and buffer area. The Melghat
Tiger Reserve has rare wildlife, birds, Flora and Fauna. Many of the
wildlife species are on the brink of extinction. The Melghat Tiger
Reserve is considered to be one of the finest area in tiger
conservation. Therefore, in exercise of power conferred by sub-
section 1 of Sec. 35 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the
Government of Maharashtra declared some of the area of Gugamal
Wildlife Division as a Gugamal National Park vide notification dated
27
th
November, 1987. In view of notification dated 15
th
February
1994, Government of Maharashtra has declared the area of East, West
and South Melghat as 'Melghat Sanctuary'. Thereafter, by notification
dated 27
th
December 2007, Government of Maharashtra, notified the
area of Gugamal National Park as a Critical Tiger Habitat.
3. On 3.3.2013, Chief Conservator of Forest and Field
Director, Melghat Tiger Reserve received secret information in
respect of hunting of tiger in Melghat. On receipt of such
information, Chief Conservator of Forest informed the Dy.
Conservator of Forest, Akot Wildlife Division about the incident. On
4.3.2013, A.C.F., Akot Wildlife Division Mr. D.G. Goswami took
custody of accused Nos. 1 to 5 and approver Anesh Chhattarsingh
Rathod and interrogated them. They disclosed that they had iron trap
and other necessary accesories for poaching, supplied by one Ranjit
Bhatia of Hoshiyarpur. They further disclosed that, they alongwith
approver Anesh went inside the core area of forest near village
Sinband, stayed there for three days, concealed spring triggered trap
along forest trail used by the tiger and killed tiger. It is revealed from
the disclosure statement that, incident of hunting took took place in
Compartment No. 1140 of Dolar Round of Dhakna Range. Therefore,
investigation was handed over to Mr. V.H. Mali, A.C.F., Dhakna.
4. Mr. Mali recorded formal statement of accused Nos.
1 to 5 and approver Anesh and then directed to register the forest
offence by issuing POR. Accordingly Forest Guard, Dolar, issued
POR No. 10/10 and arrested the accused. Whilst in forest custody,
accused Nos.1 to 3 and approver Anesh showed their willingness to
show the spot of hunting of tiger. Their statement was recorded and
in pursuance of that, forest officials alongwith accused Nos. 1 to 3
and approver Anesh, reached in the core area of forest on the border
of Akot Wildlife Division and Gugamal Wildlife Division, which is
approximately 6 K.M. away from Gobia Camp. Accused Nos. 1 to 3
and approver Anesh pointed out the spot where they had laid a trap by
digging a pit to kill the tiger, the spot where they extracted the skin of
killed tiger, the place of throwing meat, preparing food and their stay
in the forest. A.C.F. Mr. Mali prepared panchanama and seized
articles found on the spot. Investigating officer ascertained the spot
by taking the reading through GPS. It is revealed that, alleged
incident of hunting the tiger took place in compartment No. 905 of
Dhakna range.
5. During the course of investigation, R.F.O., Waan
visited the Malthana Shivar and seized incriminating articles from the
house of accused. On the basis of information supplied by the
accused Madhusingh, A.C.F. Mr. Mali seized iron trap used in
commission of crime, near village Sinban. Thereafter, the property
seized from the place of hunting and house of accused, was forwarded
to the Director, Center Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad,
for DNA report. On 10.3.2013, accused Madhusingh gave
information to investigating officer Mr. Mali that, one Bhara and
Bhajan of Katni (Madhya Pradesh) have acted as a middleman to
conclude the deal to sell the tiger skin and bones to Ranjit Bhatia.
Accused Madhusingh and Chintaram showed willingness to show the
spot, where the skin of the tiger was sold to Ranjit Bhatia.
Accordingly, accused took the forest official to Tukaithal (M.P.) and
actually shown the spot where the transaction has taken place with
Ranjit Bhatia. Accused Madhusingh received Rs. 1,65,000/- from
Ranjit Bhatia. He distributed some amount amongst accused Nos. 2
to 5. It is disclosed by accused that, accused Vinod kept Rs.20,000/-
and accused Madhusingh kept Rs.12,000/- with accused No.6
Mishrilal.
6. During investigation, it is revealed that, accused
No.1 to 3 and approver Anesh hunted tiger in Critical Tiger Habitat of
Melghat and sold it's body parts to one Ranjit Bhatia, at Tukaithal.
7. The complainant is serving as Assistant Conservator
of Forest. In view of provisions of Sec. 50(8) of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972, he is empowered to make investigation in
respect of the offence committed under Wildlife Protection Act.
Therefore, after completion of investigation, complainant filed present
complaint u/sec. 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, before the
learned J.M.F.C., Court No.4, Achalpur. It was registered as Reg.C.C.
No. 241/2013.
8. During the investigation, one of the accused manely
Anesh Chhattarsingh Rathod was granted tender of pardon by this
Court, u/sec. 306 of the Cr.P.C. He had accepted tender of pardon
and therefore, he was examined under sub-section 4 of Sec. 306 of the
Cr.P.C. by the learned J.M.F.C. Court No.4, Achalpur. The offences
levelled against the accused are not triable by the Court of Sessions or
Special Court, therefore, the present case was made over to this Court
for trial, on 18.6.2013.
9. On 5.7.2013, accused No.6 Mishrilal was produced
before this Court by R.F.O. Waan. All the six accused are in jail
since their arrest. Therefore, the trial in this case was expedited. This
being a warrant case instituted otherwise than on police report,
complainant was directed to adduce evidence u/sec. 244 of the Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, complainant examined four witnesses before framing of
the charge and closed the side by filing pursis at Exh. 79.
10. After hearing both the sides on the point of charge,
on 18.09.2013, I passed order below Exh.1 and directed to frame the
charge against the accused Nos. 1 to 6. Accordingly, on 3.10.2013, I
framed charge Exh.81 against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for
contravention of provisions of Sec. 9 punishable U/sec. 51(1C) and for
contravention of Secs. 27, 29, 30 and 31 punishable u/sec. 51(1) Wild
Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and against the accused Nos. 4 to 6 for
abetting the accused in committing the offence relating to hunting the
tiger in contravention of Sec. 9 punishable U/sec. 51(1C) r/w. Sec.
51(1D) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and against the
accused Nos. 1 to 6 for contravention of Sec. 39(3) punishable U/sec.
51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The contents of the
charge were read over and explained to the accused in vernacular.
Accused did not plead guilty.
11. Prosecution has examined in all fourteen witnesses.
I recorded further examination of accused u/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. Their
defence is of denial and false implication.
12. Following points arise for my determination and I
have recorded my finding against each of them, for the reasons stated
below :
POINTS FINDINGS
(i) Does the prosecution prove that, prior
to 4.3.2013 in Compartment No. 905 of
Dhakna Forest Range in Melghat Tiger
Reserve, accused Nos. 1 to 3 alongwith
one Anesh Chhattarsingh Rathod, have
killed a tiger, a wild animal specified in
Schedule- I of the Wildlife Protection
Act, 1972 except as provided u/sec. 11
and 12 in contravention of Sec. 9 and
thereby committed an offence punishable
u/sec. 51(1C) of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972 ? Proved.
(ii) Does prosecution further prove that, on
the aforesaid period and place, accused
Nos. 4 to 6 abetted accused Nos. 1 to 3 and
Anesh Rathod in committing offence relates
to hunting of a tiger in the Tiger Reserve in
contravention of Sec. 9 and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/sec.
51(1C) r/w. Sec. 51 (1D) of the Wildlife
Protection Act, 1972 ? Not proved.
(iii) Does prosecution further prove that, on
Nos. 1 to 3 alongwith one Anesh
Chhattarsingh Rathod entered in the
sanctuary declared by the State of Maharashtra
by notification, without permit granted u/s. 28
of the Wildlife Protection Act, in contravention
of Sec. 27 and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/sec. 51(1) of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 ? Proved.

(iv) Does prosecution further prove that, on
Chhattarsingh Rathod destroyed, exploited
or removed wildlife from a sanctuary
without permit granted by the Chief
Wildlife Warden in contravention of
Sec. 29 and thereby committed an offence
Protection Act, 1972 ? Proved.
(v) Does prosecution further prove that, on
Chhattarsingh Rathod, kindled fire
in a sanctuary in such a manner as to
endanger such sanctuary in contravention
of Sec. 30 and thereby committed an
offence punishable u/sec. 51(1) of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 r/w. Sec.
26 Indian Forest Act, 1927 ? Proved.
(vi) Does prosecution further prove that, on
Chhattarsingh Rathod, entered a Sanctuary
in a Melghat Tiger Reserve, with weapons,
i.e. Sphere, iron trap, iron big knives,
without permission in contravention of
Sec. 31 and thereby committed an offence
Protection Act, 1972 ? Proved.
(vii) Does prosecution further prove that, on
Chattarsingh Rathod, sold and destroyed
the wild animal, i.e. Tiger, in contravention
of Sec. 39(3) and thereby you have
committed an offence punishable u/sec.
51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972 ? Proved against accused
Nos. 1 to 3 only.
(viii) What order ? Accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted
U/s. 248(2) of Cr.P.C. & Accused
Nos. 4 to 6 are acquitted U/s.248(1)
of Cr.P.C.
R E A S O N S
13. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined fourteen witnesses. They are, P.W.1 Mr. Dinesh Ramdas
Kandale, at Exh.35, P.W.2 Mr. Vishal Hanumant Mali, at Exh.38,
P.W.3 Mr. Datta Ganpat Goswami, at Exh.61, P.W.4 Mr.
Chandrashekhar Sarjerao Chaudhari, at Exh.70, P.W.5 Mr. Jayant
Sudhakarrao Wadatkar, at Exh. 90, P.W.6 Dr. Shivendra Devidas
Mahalle, at Exh.91, P.W.7 Mr. Pralhad Devrao Wankhade, at
Exh.94, P.W.8 Mr. Gangaram Sanu More, at Exh.96, P.W.9 Mr.
Gaffar Khan Dalmir Khan Pathan, at Exh. 99, P.W.10 Mr. Gajanan
Vishnupant Umak, at Exh. 100, P.W. 11 Mr. Sunil Baliram Wakode,
at Exh.103, P.W. 12 Mr. Ganesh Sampat Dabre, at Exh.105, P.W. 13
Mr. Vijay Narayan Dave, at Exh.107 and P.W. 14 Mr. Anesh
Chhattarsingh Rathod, at Exh.119. I have heard Shri U.S. Deshmukh,
Special Counsel for Forest/Complainant, Shri A.R. Phuse, learned
advocate for the accused Nos. 1 to 5 and Shri P.V. Mahalle, learned
advocate for the accused No.6. I have gone through the notes of
arguments, filed on behalf of prosecution at Exh.134 and on behalf of
accused Nos. 1 to 5, at Exh.136.
As to Point No.1 :
14. Hunting of any wild animal specified in Shedule-I to
IV except provided u/sec. 11 and 12, is prohibited u/sec. 9 of the Wild
Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The term 'hunting' is defined in Sec.
2(16) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as including the killing,
poisoning, capturing, cursing, snaring, trapping any wild life etc. In
order to protect the species of wild life, Wild Life (Protection) Act,
came to be enacted in the year 1972. The wild life is on the brink of
extinction. Hunting of wild life inevitably disturb the food chain in
jungle, therefore, in order to protect wild life, stringent punishment is
provided for hunting of wild life. If the hunting is made in the Tiger
Reserve, then punishment is more severe. Here in this case, the
prosecution came with story that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 and approver
Anesh killed the tiger, scientific name Panthera Tigris, listed in
Schedule-I at Sr. No.39 appended to Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972,
in Melghat Tiger Reserve.
15. Taking into consideration the charges levelled
against the accused, before dealing with the evidence of prosecution
witnesses on the point of hunting, it is necessary to see whether the
place where the alleged hunting has taken place, comes within Tiger
Reserve. As per the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, it
is for the Government to make declaration in respect of Tiger Reserve,
Sanctuary and National Park.
16. P.W.2 Mr. Vishal Mali is serving as Assistant
Conservator of Forest in Gugamal Wild Life Division. He made the
entire investigation in this case. In his evidence, he has placed on
record copy of notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra,
declaring Melghat Tiger Sanctuary, at Exh.39, notification declaring
Gugamal National Park at Exh.40 and notification dated 27.12.2007,
declaring the entire Gugamal National Park as Critical Tiger Habitat.
As per the notification (Exh.40), Compartment No.905 of Dhakna
Range comes within the Melghat Sanctuary and Gugamal National
Park. So far as the Tiger Reserve is concerned, explanation to Sec.
38(V) Sub-section 4 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, lays
down that, expression 'tiger reserve' includes core or Critical Tiger
Habitat areas of National Park or Sanctuary. Exh.42 is the
notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra notifying the
area of Gugamal National Park as Critical Tiger Habitat. Therefore,
if it is established that, the alleged offence of hunting has taken place
in the Critical Tiger Habitat, it can be said that, incident has taken
place in the Tiger Reserve.
17. In order to ascertain the hunting of tiger, Schedule-I
animal, I have gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses,
particularly the evidence of witness Nos. 1 to 7 and 12 to 14. The
witness Nos. 8 to 11 are on the point of seizure of amount from the
accused No.6 Mishrilal and their evidence will be discussed at the
appropriate place in the judgment.
18. One of the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the accused Nos. 1 to 5 that, most of the witnesses are
from Forest Department. They are interested witnesses and therefore,
their evidence may not be relied upon. The special counsel appearing
on behalf of the forest/complainant submitted that, the incident of
hunting took place during night hours in core area of reserve forest.
The crime is committed in such a manner that there is no possibility
of witnessing the incident by any of the person and therefore, merely
because the witnesses are from forest department, their evidence is
not liable to be discarded. In support of his contention, he referred
the observation made in the case of Forest Range Officer...vs..
Aboobucker and another reported in 1989 CR.L.J. 2030. I have
gone through the cited authority. In the said decision, the Hon'ble
Kerala High Court has observed that, Forest is an area where human
activities are scanty except the clandestine adventures of poachers.
The invaders of forest and wild life usually take care that their
poaching techniques go unnoticed by others including wild animals.
They adopt devices to keep their movements undetected. Hence, it
would be pedantic to insist on the rule of corroboration by
independent evidence in proof of offence relating to forests and wild
life.
19. Here in the case at hand, the alleged incident of
hunting came into light four months after it's happening in a core
forest where the entry is prohibited rather the area is not accessible to
human all the round. Therefore, keeping in view the observations
made in the above referred decision, the available evidence is not
liable to be discarded.
20. Now, we will have to see whether the evidence
available on record is sufficient to reach to the conclusion that, the
fact of tiger killing is established? P.W.2, 3, 4 and 7 in their evidence
state that, accused Nos. 1 to 5 and approver Anesh disclosed that,
they have killed the tiger in forest near Sindban village. P.W.2 Mr.
Mali claims to have recorded the common statement of the accused
Nos. 1 to 5 and approver Anesh, and P.W.3 Mr. Goswami has
recorded the statements of the accused separately. Whereas, P.W.4 to
7 were present while recording the statement. According to
prosecution case, accused Nos. 1 to 3 and approver Anesh, they have
actually participated in hunting the tiger.
21. Approver Anesh had accepted the tender of pardon
and his statement was recorded by the learned J.M.F.C. Court No.4,
Achalpur and therefore, he was cited as a witness and not arrayed in
the list of accused. The prosecution has examined approver Anesh as
P.W.14, however, he resiled from his earlier statement. Therefore, his
evidence is not useful to the prosecution. After his evidence, learned
Special counsel for the complainant made application Exh.122 and
certified that, in his opinion approver Anesh has either by willfully
concealed anything essential or gave false evidence and not complied
with the condition on which the tender was made. In such
circumstances, his trial would be conducted separately u/sec. 308 of
Cr.P.C. for all the offences charged against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 as
per charge Exh.81. Thus, the entire prosecution case rests upon the
confessional statements made by accused Nos. 1 to 5 and approver
Anesh before the Forest Officers,, particularly before P.W.3 Mr. D.G.
Goswami.
22. The confession is a statement made by accused
charged with an offence stating or suggesting the inference that, he
committed the crime. The confession is very valuable piece of
evidence and it is admissible only if making of confession appears to
the Court that, it has not been caused by any inducement, threat or
promise. Before the confession can be relied upon, it is necessary to
see that, confession was made voluntarily and it is consistent and true.
23. P.W.3 Mr. Datta Goswami was serving as a Asstt.
Conservator of Forest in Akot Wild Life Division. According to him,
on 4.3.2013, as per the direction of his superior officer, he reached at
the Range Forest Office, Waan. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and approver
Anesh Rathod were present there. They all have consented for
recording their statements regarding hunting of tiger and accordingly
he recorded statements of the six persons in presence of panch
witnesses. The statements are at Exhs. 62 to 67. He further states
that, from the disclosure statement of the accused, it appears that the
incident of hunting of tiger took place in Dhakna Forest Range.
Therefore, further investigation was handed over to A.C.F. Mr. V.H.
Mali.
24. P.W.2 Mr. V.H. Mali stated that, on getting
information he reached at Waan. He interrogated all the six persons.
They disclosed about hunting of tiger and therefore, their statement
was recorded at Exh.43. It appears that, statement Exh.43 is the
common statement of accused Nos. 1 to 5 and approver Anesh
Rathod. P.W.2 Mr. Mali further states that, on the basis of
statements of accused, POR was issued. P.W.1 Mr. Dinesh Kandale
proved POR No.10/10 in his evidence. His evidence is of formal
nature. Prior to recording of statement of the accused by Mr. V.H.
Mali, P.W.3 Mr. Goswami interrogated the accused Nos. 1 to 5 and
approver Anesh and they made their individual statements before
P.W.3 Mr. Goswami. The statements are recorded in presence of
panch witnesses. They are at Exhs. 62 to 67. In regard to
confessional statements, learned special counsel for the complainant
submitted that, the confessional statement of accused No.1 to 5 and
approver Anesh are recorded by P.W.3 Mr. Goswami, who is the
Forest Officer and therefore, those statements are admissible in
evidence, as they are not hit by Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. In
support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following
judgments of Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court.
1. Criminal Misc. Application No. 140/1993 Dr. Emerico D'souza
..vs.. State Through The Deputy Conservator of Forest (Hon'ble
Bombay High Court).
2. Criminal Appeal No. 26/1964 Badaku Joty Svant..vs.. State of
Mysore +1 AIR 1966 SC 1746 (Hon'ble Supreme Court).
3. Criminal Revision No. 342/1998 Matia Palei and another...vs..
State of Orissa (Hon'ble Orissa High Court).
4. Criminal Appeal No. 317/1988 Forest Range Officer ..vs..
Aboobucker and another (Hon'ble Kerala High Court).
5. Criminal Revision No. 100/1957 E.C. Richard...vs... Forest
Range Officer, Mettupalayam (Hon'ble Madras High Court).
25. I have gone through the aforesaid decisions. In the
case of Badaku Joty Svant..vs.. State of Mysore, the Hon'ble Apex
Court, while deciding the appeal under the Sea Customs Act, it was
held that, the statement made by an accused to the Deputy
Superintendent of Customs and Excise is not hit by Sec. 25 of the
Evidence Act and is admissible in evidence unless and otherwise the
accused successfully takes advantage of Sec. 24 of the Evidence Act.
In the case of Emerico D'souza accused was
prosecuted for illegally possessing the cut wood. He was discharged
by the trial Court on the ground that, except the confessional
statement, there is no other independent evidence to involve the
accused in the forest offences. Said order was set aside by the Hon'ble
Sessions Court in appeal. Accused had filed revision against the order
of Hon'ble Sessions Court, setting aside the order of discharge.
While deciding the said revision, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has
made reference of the law laid down in the case of Badaku Joty Svant,
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and observed that, the statement made
by the accused are not confession U/sec. 25 of the Evidence Act, as
Range Forest Officer is not a police officer.
In the case of Matia Palei and another, the Hon'ble
Orissa High Court observed that, Forest officials though invested with
certain powers of police officers, are not the police officers. As such
statement made before them, is not hit by Sec. 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
The Hon'ble Kerala High Court, in the case of
Aboobucker and another and the Hon'ble Madras High Court, in the
case of E.C. Richard, has taken the same view. The proposition of
law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, is that confessional
statement made before the Forest Officers, is admissible in evidence,
unless the accused successfully takes the advantage of Sec. 24 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
26. Learned special counsel for the complainant
submitted that, the confessional statement Exhs. 62 to 67 are made
before P.W.3, who is the Forest officer and the accused has not raised
any defence u/sec. 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no
challenge to the version that, the accused have given confessional
statement with understanding that, it may be used against them and
therefore, on the basis of these confessional statement, the
involvement of accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the case of hunting of tiger has
been established.
27. Learned advocate for the accused Nos. 1 to 5 argued
that, the witnesses in whose presence the alleged statement made by
the accused, they are from the forest department, P.W.3 has not
followed the proper procedure to record the statement and accused
have made different story in the confessional statement. Therefore,
such confessional statement cannot be relied upon.
28. In the light of submission made on behalf of both
the sides, I have gone through the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3 in his
evidence stated that, accused Nos. 1 to 5 and approver Anesh made
statement before him and he recorded the same in presence of panch
witnesses and obtained signature and thumb impression marks of the
accused.
29. P.W.7 Mr. Pralhad Wankhade has supported the
story putforth by P.W.3. He states that, P.W.3 Mr. Goswami has
recorded the statements of accused Nos. 1 to 5 and approver Anesh in
his presence and the statement at Exhs. 62 to 67 bears his signature
as a panch witness. During cross-examination of these two witnesses,
except suggestions which are denied by the witnesses, nothing is
brought on record. In the cross-examination of P.W.3, accused came
with defence that, their signatures or thumb impressions were
obtained on the blank papers and subsequently the statements were
recorded. No other material is on record to reach to the conclusion
that the signatures of the accused were taken on the blank papers. It
appears that the voluntary character of the confession is not
challenged by the defence. Nowhere accused suggested that, they
made confessional statement under threat of prosecution or promise
given by the person in a authority.
30. Learned special counsel for the complainant,
submitted that the burden is on the accused to prove that, the
statement was obtained by threat, promise or inducement. In support
of his contention, he relied on the case of K.I. Pavully..vs.. Assistant
Collector reported in (1997) 3 SCC 721. In the said authority, the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, if a confession is proved by
unimpeachable evidence and if it is of voluntary nature, the burden is
on the accused to prove that, statement was obtained by threat,
promise and if the accused able to prove the fact creating reasonable
doubt that the confession was not voluntary or it was obtained by
threat, coercion or inducement, burden would be on the prosecution to
prove that the confession was made by the accused voluntarily.
31. Keeping in view the observation made in the
aforesaid authority, we will have to see whether the accused have
brought on record any circumstances or probabilities to say that their
confessional statements were recorded by giving threat or promise. I
have already stated earlier that, except suggestions which were denied
by the witnesses, nothing is brought out in the cross-examination or
no probabilities are brought on record by the defence and therefore, it
can be said that, the accused could not discharge the burden to
establish the fact that, their statements were not made voluntarily.
P.W.3 and P.W.7 are the person working in the forest department.
Nothing is on record that, they are biased and having an enmical
terms with the accused. In such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.3
and P.W.7 on the point of recording confession appears to be
trustworthy.
32. When the confessional statement of the accused are
found to be voluntary and the evidence of the witnesses appears to be
trustworthy, it is necessary to see whether the confessional statement
are true and supported by any other evidence. In order to find out the
truth, I examined the confessions at Exhs. 62, 63, 64, 66 and 67 and
compared with the rest of the prosecution evidence and the
probabilities of the case. Exh.65 is the confessional statement of
approver Anesh. At present he is not the accused in this trial.
Therefore, his statement is not taken into consideration.
33. Accused No.1 in his confessional statement (Exh.62)
stated in detail that, one Ranjit Bhatia gave him iron trap and training
to kill the tiger in the Melghat area and also gave Rs.5,000/-. He
further states that, he informed about the plan to his brother Chitaram
Leharsingh Rathod, who is accused No.2 and also made prepare and
joined the accused No.3 Vinod Premlal Pawar and approver Anesh
Chhattarsingh Rathod. Thereafter, they all entered into the forest near
Motakheda. Then, Madhusingh searched the tiger track and then
concealed the trap along forest trail used by the tiger. They stayed in
the forest area for three days, but for first two days they could not trap
the tiger, but on third day evening tiger stepped on the concealed trap
and the foot of the tiger was immediately trapped in the jaws of the
trap.
34. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and approver Anesh heard the
voice of the tiger who was trying for it's release. Thereafter, accused
No.1 killed the trapped tiger with the help of sphere. After
confirmation of tiger's death, accused Nos. 1 to 3 and approver Anesh
carried the tiger to the nearby area and they skinned the tiger,
detached the bones, teeth, nails and mustache and thrown the meat at
the near place. Thereafter, he alongwith accused Nos. 2, 3 and
approver Anesh returned towards village Sindban with tiger skin,
teeth, bones, nails and mustache. Accused No.1 Madhusingh further
states that, they all kept the parts of the tiger in a concealed place for
about one month and then, as per the directions of Ranjit Bhatia, he
alongwith his brother accused No.2 Chintaram went to Tukaithal and
handed over body parts of the killed tiger to Ranjit Bhatia. He
received Rs.1,65,000/- from Ranjit Bhatia. Thereafter, he alongwith
his brother came to village Susarda. He gave Rs.15,000/- each to
accused No. 3 Vinod and approver Anesh. Then he gave Rs.2,000/- to
accused No.4 Sagarlal and Rs.1,000/- to accused No.5 Narvilal and
and remaining amount was distributed between him and his brother
Chintaram.
35. The confessional statement made by accused No.2
Chintaram and accused No.3 Vinod are supporting the confessional
statement made by accused Madhusingh. There is no inconsistency in
their confessional statements recorded at Exhs. 62, 63 and 64. It is
seen from the statement of these three accused that, accused Nos. 1, 2,
3 and approver Anesh in the middle of December, 2012 entered into
the core area of Gugamal National Park, which is notified as a Critical
Tiger Habitat and killed the tiger.
36. In the case of Sansar Chand...vs..... State of
Rajasthan reported in (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 604, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no absolute rule
that an extra judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction,
although ordinarily an extra judicial confession should be
corroborated by some other material. In view of the observation
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we will have to see whether in
this case there is some corroborative material. P.W.2 Mr. V.H. Mali
stated in his evidence that, on 6.3.2013, accused made statement
before him and showed their readiness to point out the spot where the
tiger was hunted. He recorded statement at Exh.46 and then he
alongwith accused Nos. 1 to 3 and approver Anesh and others,
proceeded towards northern side of Gobia Camp as shown by the
accused and reached on the border of Akot Wild Life Division and
Gugamal Wild Life Division, which is approximately 6 K.M. away
from Gobia Camp. He further states that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 and
approver Anesh pointed out the spot where the iron trap was laid and
tiger was killed and other spots where accused skinned the tiger,
thrown the meat of the tiger, prepared their food and place of their
stay.
37. According to P.W.2 Mr. V.H. Mali, on the place of
hunting, one pit was seen and there was two pieces of nails like tiger
nails. They have ascertained the location of the spot with the help of
GPS and as per the spot shown by the accused, it is seen that, the
incident of hunting has taken place in Compartment No. 905, Boripati
round of Dhakna Range. Thereafter accused showed the spot which
was at the distance of 50 meters from the place of hunting, where the
accused removed the skin and bones of the tiger in the Nalla. There
blood stained stone, blood stained earth and hairs of the tiger were
found. Said spot was also in Compartment No. 905. Thereafter,
accused took him little ahead and pointed out the spot, where the meat
of the tiger was thrown . On the said spot, blood mixed decomposed
meat was seen. The veternary doctor, who accompanied him,
examined the meat on the spot and accordingly gave his report.
38. P.W.2 Mr. Mali further stated that, as per the report
of the doctor, meat found on the spot was of the animal, who died
prior to one and half month. He further states that, then the accused
showed the spot where they stayed for three days. It is seen on the
said spot that, the place was clean and one tobacco pouch was lying
there. Then accused Nos. 1 to 3 and approver Anesh pointed out the
spot where they cooked their food. P.W.2 Mr. Mali states that, he
found one stone oven, burnt wood, coal and ash. P.W.2 Mali further
states that, the articles found on the places, they were seized by Mr.
Choudhari, R.F.O., Dhakna. The photographs were taken and
Surveyor took the GPS reading. P.W.2 Mr. V.H. Mali further states
that, as it was evening time, it was difficult to come out from the
dense forest in a dark, therefore, he alongwith accused and others
came at Gobia Camp and prepared panchanama in presence of panch
witnesses, which is at Exh.47. The evidence of P.W.2 Mr. Mali is
supported by P.W.5 Mr. Jayant Wadatkar, who is the independent
witness.
39. P.W.5 Mr. Jayant Wadatkar does the work for
conservation of wild life and research work in Melghat area. He fully
supported the testimony made by P.W.2 Mr. Mali and stated that
panchanama (Exh.47) is prepared in his presence and it's contents are
correct. In his cross-examination, except suggestions which are
denied by the witness, nothing is brought on record.
40. P.W.6 Dr. Shivendra Mahalle also supported the
version of P.W.2 Mr. Mali. According to Dr. Mahalle, on 6.3.2013, he
alongwith Dr. Jawarkar, Dr. Kadu, Forest Officers and four accused,
reached in forest area. He made the minute observation of the pieces
of meat found on the spot shown by the accused and considering the
growth of mogattes on the pieces of meat, he reached at the
conclusion that, those pieces of meat might be of an animal died prior
to one and half month to two months. Accordingly, they three
Veterinary doctors prepared Necropsy examination report and handed
over to the forest officers. Said report is at Exh.92.
41. P.W.12 Mr. Ganesh Dabre, who has taken GPS
reading and prepared the map (Exh.106) also supported the story
putforth by A.C.F. Mr. V.H. Mali. P.W.13 Mr. Vijay Dave is working
as Museum Assistant in Tiger Project at Paratwada. From his
evidence it is seen that, on 6.3.2013, he snapped photographs (Exhs.
108 to 115) of the spots shown by the accused.
42. On the point of seizure, the evidence of P.W.2 Mr.
Mali is corroborated by P.W.4 Mr. Chandrashekhar Chaudhari, who is
working as Range Forest Officer of Dhakna range. He stated in his
evidence that, on 6.3.2013, he seized tiger nails, hair of tiger, blood
mixed earth, decomposed meat and other articles as per panchanama
Exh.77. P.W.5 Mr. Jayant Wadatkar is the panch witness on seizure
panchanama Exh.77. He supported the testimony of P.W.4 Mr.
Chaudhari.
43. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.3 Mr. D.G.
Goswami that, on 6.3.2013, he alongwith panch witnesses visited the
house of the accused at Sinband and Malthana and seized some
incriminating articles from their houses as per panchanama (Exh.68).
P.W.7 Mr.Pralhad Wankhade is the panch witness on panchanama
Exh.68. He supported the version of Mr. Goswami. P.W.2 Mr. V.H.
Mali also states in his evidence that, on 8.3.2013, accused
Madhusingh has made statement before him leading to discovery and
in pursuance of that, he seized one iron trap produced by accused
Madhusingh from the place between Ranigaon and Susarda and he
seized the same under seizure panchanama Exhs. 48 and 49. P.W.2
further states that on 9.3.2013, he obtained finger nails of accused
Nos. 1 to 5 and approver Anesh from the Rural Hospital, Achalpur.
On 10.3.2013, he sealed the seized articles as per panchanama
(Exh.50). It is seen from the evidence of P.W.4 Mr. Chaudhari that on
10.3.2013, he forwarded seized articles for DNA analysis as per letter
(Exh.78). As per the said letter (Exh.78) in all fifteen articles were
forwarded for DNA analysis.
44. It is seen from the record that, Investigating Officer
has not forwarded the iron trap seized from accused No.1
Madhusingh, for obtaining report. . Therefore, the seized trap will not
be used as a corroborative piece. The prosecution has placed on
record the DNA Report alongwith list Exh.54. Said report is issued
by the Scientist, Center for Cellular and Molecular Biology,
Hyderabad. The said report comes within the purview of Sec. 293 of
Cr.P.C. and it may be used as evidence in this trial. Therefore, said
report is marked as Exh.137. It appears from the said report that, out
of fifteen samples, eleven samples were found negative, two samples
were not suitable for isolation and two samples at Sr.No. 5 i.e. nail
cuttings of approver Anesh and at Sr. No.13, blood fluid on soil, were
found to be positively of tiger origin and both the specimens were
from a single female tiger.
45. Learned special counsel for the complainant
submitted that, on the basis of memorandum of accused, the place
where the tiger has been hunted is discovered. Further, the articles
were found on the place shown by the accused and they are found to
be of a tiger. |The accused had knowledge of the place where relevant
fact as per their knowledge was discovered. The memorandum
Exh.47 is recorded jointly in the name of accused Nos. 1 to3 and
approver Anesh and it cannot be faulted on that ground. The seized
property was kept in the custody of the forest officials in a sealed
condition and it was forwarded to C.C.M.B. Hyderabad for DNA
analysis. These documentary evidence is sufficient to reach to the
conclusion that the confessional statements made by the accused are
true. Shri A.R. Phuse, learned Advocate for the accused Nos. 1 to 5
contended that, the alleged confessional statements of the accused
Nos. 1 to 3 are isolated piece of evidence, not receiving any sort of
corroboration from any sources and therefore, entire case of
complainant collapses.
46. Having considered the rival contention of both the
sides, we will have to see whether discovery of the fact is at the
instance of accused. The discovery to be made admissible u/sec. 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, must be based on the information given
by the accused. According to P.W.2 Mr. V.H. Mali, accused Nos. 1 to
5 and approver Anesh made statement before him. Exh.46 appears to
be a memorandum statement and Exh.47 is the panchanama. It
appears from the statement (Exh.46) that, whilst in forest custody,
accused made statement before Mr. Mali and showed willingness to
show the spot of incident. In pursuance of the statement of accused,
the place where the incident has taken place was discovered. It is
true that, the common statement is recorded by the investigating
officer. It appears from the statement that, said statement is in respect
of accused Nos.1 to 3 and approver Anesh, because as per the
confessional statement of accused Nos. 4 and 5, they have not
participated in hunting of tiger. Investigating officer has not recorded
separate statement of the accused and instead of that, he recorded
joint statement. A joint statement of accused are not per-se
inadmissible in evidence and can be considered if the discovery made
in consequences thereof affords a guarantee about the truth of the
statement.
47. It appears from the statement Exh.46 that, there is
no signatures of the panch witnesses. It is a mistake on the part of the
investigating officer, however, the forest officers are not the
professional investigators and therefore, such minor flaws in the
investigation will not fatal to prosecution to discard entire case,
because in such cases after detection of crime, the investigating
officer has to collect the material to prosecute the accused in respect
of the offence. Learned special counsel for the complainant
submitted that, the articles i.e. blood mixed soil discovered by the
accused has been found by the C.C.M.B. to be of tiger and therefore,
accused had knowledge of place, where relevant fact as per their
knowledge was discovered.
48. Learned special counsel for the complainant, has
placed reliance on the case in between Pulukuri Kottaya and
others..vs.. Emperor reported in AIR (34) 1947 Privi Council 67. I
have gone through the said cited authority. As per this ruling, "fact
discovered" within the meaning of Sec. 27, cannot be found to the
object produced in pursuance to the statement of the accused. Said
concept is wide enough to include the place/spot as well, where from
such object is discovered. Here in the case in hand, accused Nos. 1 to
3 and approver Anesh disclosed the spot of incident. Thus, led the
forest agency up to it, where various articles like decomposed meat,
blood stained stone, blood stained earth were found. These articles
were forwarded for DNA analysis and the report discloses that the
blood stained earth found to be of a female tiger. That spot itself is a
discovery and best corroborative piece of evidence.
49. One of the accomplice Anesh Chhattarsingh
Rathod, who had accepted tender of pardon was actually participated
in the commission of crime as per confessional statement of accused
Nos. 1 to 3. He underwent the DNA sampling of his nails and DNA
Report (Exh.137) gave finding that, his nails were having element of
DNA of same female tiger, which were found on blood stained earth.
Approver Anesh has not supported the prosecution, a separate trial
would be conducted against him. The fact remains that, scientific
evidence increases the probabilities of involvement of accused in this
crime.
50. Extending the discussion further on this aspect, it is
necessary to mention here that, through DNA report (Exh.137)
expresses 'Negative' or ' 'inconclusive' opinion about many things like
pieces of meat, hair etc. found on the spot of incident, the fact remains
that, the report clearly discloses that, the soil collected from the spot
is having blood element of a tigress and approver Anesh was found to
have carrying the traces of same tigress body in his nail. The incident
in question came into light four months after it's happening. In the
passage of time many important pieces of evidence on spot are likely
to get washed away. In this view of matter, I do not attach any
importance to 'negative' or 'inconclusive' opinion expressed in the
DNA report regarding certain things. Therefore, I am of the view
that, corroborative evidence on all the angle of case cannot be
insisted. Therefore, case propounded by the complainant strikes a
judicial mind as probable.
51. It is pertinent to note here that, the confessional
statement made by accused Nos. 1 to 3 before P.W.3 Mr. D.G.
Goswami, found to be voluntarily and there is no reason to disbelieve
the version of P.W.3 Mr. Goswami. The confessional statements are
proved as corroborated by discovery of place of incident. Said
incident has taken place in the Compartment No. 905 of Dhakna
range in Gugamal National Park. In view of the notification (Exh.42)
area of Gugamal National Park is notified as a Critical Tiger Habitat
and the Tiger Reserve including Critical Tiger Habitat area of
National Park. In such circumstances, it can be said that, the offence
relates to hunting of tiger took place in Melghat Tiger Reserve. Tiger,
scientific name Panthera Tigris is specified in Schedule-I appended in
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and it is not the case of accused
that, permission u/sec. 11 or 12 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972 was granted to them. Therefore, I hold that, in the middle of
December, 2012, accused Nos. 1 to 3 have committed an offence of
hunting of tiger, punishable u/sec. 51(1C) of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972. Hence, I answer point No.1 as proved.
As to Point No.2 :
52. Accused Nos. 4 to 6 are charged for abetting
accused Nos. 1 to 3 and approver Anesh for committing the offence
relates to hunting of tiger in the Tiger Reserve. Sec.51(1D) of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, provided same punishment as
provided u/sec. 51(1C) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, for the
offence of abetment. In order to constitute the abetment, the abetter
must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of crime.
Now, we will have to see whether there is evidence to say that,
accused Nos. 4 to 6 aided or instigated accused Nos.1 to 3 and
approver Anesh to commit the crime. On 4.3.2013, accused Nos. 4
and 5 were arrested alongwith accused Nos.1 to 3 and approver
Anesh. Their confessional statements were recorded by P.W.3 Mr.
D.G. Goswami. While deciding point No.1, this Court has held that
the confessional statements made by the accused are voluntary one.
53. The confessional statements of accused Nos. 4 and 5
are at Exhs. 66 and 67. It appears from the confessional statement of
accused Nos. 1 to 3 that, accused Nos. 4 and 5 never instigated or
aided them in committing the crime of hunting. Accused Nos. 1 to 3
in their confessional statement stated that, after receipt of
Rs.1,65,000/-, accused Madhusingh had given Rs.2,000/- to accused
Sagarlal and Rs.1,000/- to accused No.5 Narvilal. Accused Nos. 4
and 5 in their confessional statement, had disclosed the fact of receipt
of amount from Madhusingh. However, mere receipt of amount from
Madhusingh itself, is not sufficient to establish the fact of abetment.
There must be intention of the abetter to make some act to aid or
facilitate the commission of offence. It is seen from the confessional
statement of accused Nos. 4 and 5 that, they were not knowing about
hunting of tiger. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 have received the amount
innocently without knowledge about the offence being committed and
therefore, merely on the ground of receiving the amount, it will be
very difficult to say that, they have abetted the principal offender in
committing the offence.
54. So far as the accused No.6 is concerned, the
allegations against him are that, accused Vinod and accused
Madhusingh kept some amount with him. P.W.2 Mr. V.H. Mali states
in his evidence that, accused Vinod made statement before him that,
he has kept the amount of Rs.20,000/- received by him by selling the
skin of tiger, with accused Mishrilal. He further states that, on
5.4.2013, accused Mishrilal disclosed before him that, accused
Madhusingh has given Rs.12,000/- to him. The statement made by
P.W.2 Mr. V.H.Mali is not supported by any other cogent and
convincing evidence. P.W.8 to 11 are the witnesses on seizure of
amount from accused Mishrilal. P.W.9 Mr. Gaffar Khan, the forester
deposes that, on 16.3.2013, he alongwith panch witnesses Mr. Musale
and Mr. Kasdekar and Police Patil P.W.8 Mr. Gangaram More,
reached at the house of accused No.6 Mishrilal, at Motakheda and
seized Rs.20,000/- from him and prepared seizure panchanama
Exh.97 at Golai. P.W.8 Mr. Gangaram More has supported the version
of P.W.9 Mr. Gaffar Khan on the point of seizure. P.W.11 is the
another forest official, who on 28.4.2013, seized the amount of
Rs.12,000/- from accused No.6, Mishrilal in presence of panch
witnesses as per seizure panchanama Exh.101 and 102. P.W.10 Mr.
Gajanan Umak, Forest Guard, is the panch witness on the
panchanama Exhs. 101 and 102. He supported the version of P.W.11
on the point of seizure.
55. The accused has denied the seizure of amount from
him. However, the evidence of P.Ws.8 to 11 clearly establishes that
the amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.12,000/- was seized from accused
No.6 Mishrilal. It has come on record that, accused Mishrilal runs a
fair price shop at village Motakheda. Therefore, if amount of
Rs.20,000/- and Rs.12,000/- was found in his possession, in absence
of other evidence, it is very difficult to say that, said amount is
received by him from accused Madhusingh and Vinod. Moreover,
statement of Mr.V.H. Mali does not find support from the
confessional statement of accused No.1 Madhusingh and Vinod.
There is nothing in their statement regarding giving amount to
Mishrilal. As per the confessional statement of Vinod, he received
amount of Rs.15,000/- after selling tiger skin and according to
prosecution case, he has given Rs.20,000/- to Mishrilal. The story
putforth by P.W.2 in this regard does not appear to be trustworthy. The
evidence in regard to involvement of the accused No.6 Mishrilal, is
not convincing and reliable. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold
that, prosecution has failed to prove that, accused Nos. 4 to 6 in any
way abetted accused Nos. 1 to 3 in committing the crime of hunting of
tiger in a Melghat Tiger Reserve. In such circumstances, I answer
point No.2 as 'not proved'.
As to Points No.3, 5 and 6 :
56. All the three points are correlated to each other and
therefore, they are clubbed together to avoid the repetition. In view of
the provisions of Sec.27 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, no
person other than the person described in clause (a) to (e) of Sec. 27,
shall enter or reside in the Sanctuary. In view of the provisions of
Sec.30 of the Act, kindling the fire in the sanctuary is prohibited and
the entering in the sanctuary with any weapon, is also restricted as
per Sec.31 and if there is contravention of all these provisions, penalty
is provided in Sec.51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
57. In view of the notification Exh.41, Melghat
Sanctuary is declared by the Government of Maharashtra and as per
notification Exh.40, Gugamal National Park is declared by the
Government of Maharashtra and Dhakna range comes within the said
National Park. In view of the provisions of Sec.35(8) of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972, provisions of Sec.27, 28, 30 to 32 may apply in
relation to National Park as they apply in relation to Sanctuary. Here
in this case, the entire prosecution case is revolving around the
confessional statements of accused Nos. 1 to 3. From the confessional
statement of accused Nos. 1 to 3, it appears that, they entered into the
dense forest with an intention to kill the tiger, they stayed in the forest
area for three days, they cooked their food by kindling the fire and
they killed the tiger by using iron trap and sphere.
58. As per sec. 2(35) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972, weapon includes traps and any instrument of destroying,
injurying or killing any animal. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have no prior
permission and they are not the person specified in clause(a) to (e) of
Sec. 27. Therefore, they were prohibited from entering into the forest.
Accused cooked food by kindling the fire in a Sanctuary and National
Park. Such kindling of fire is definitely endanger to Sanctuary and
therefore, on the basis of confessional statement of accused Nos. 1 to
3, which found to be made voluntary, it can be held that, they have
contravened the provisions of Sec.27, 30 and 31 and thereby
committed an offence punishable U/sec. 51(1) of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972. Hence, I answer points No. 3, 5 and 6 as
'proved'.
As to Point No. 4 :
59. The next charge against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 is in
respect of causing destruction in a Sanctuary without permit. In view
of the provisions of Sec. 29 of the Act, destruction, exploitation or
removal of any wild life including any forest produce, is prohibited
except the permission granted by Chief Wild Life Warden. Here in
this case, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 have hunted the wild life, i.e. tiger,
specified in Schedule-I and thereby caused destruction of wild life
and thus violated the provision of Sec.29 punishable U/sec. 51(1) of
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Hence, I answer point No.4 as
'proved'.
As to Point No. 7 :
60. Last charge against the accused Nos. 1 to 6 is in
respect of destroying the government property in contravention of
Sec.39(3) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. In view of
provisions of clause(a) of sub-section(1) of Sec.39 of the Act, wild
animal hunted in contravention of any of the provisions of the Wild
Life (Protection) Act, 1972 shall be the property of State Government.
Sub-section 3 of Sec. 39 lays down that, no person shall without
permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or Authorized
Officer -
(a) acquire or keep in his possession, custody or control, or
(b) transfer to any person whether by way of gift, sale or
otherwise, or
(c) destroy or damage such government property.
61. Here in the case at hand, accused Nos. 1 to 3
alongwith approver Anesh, are involved in actual hunting. It is
alleged that, they have sold the bones and skin of the killed tiger to
one Ranjit Bhatia at Tukaithal. P.W.2 Mr. V.H. Mali stated in his
evidence that, accused Madhusingh and Chintaram pointed out the
spot, where they sold the bones and skin to Ranjit Bhatia. Even in the
confessional statement, accused Nos. 1 to 3 made disclosure of the
said fact. The investigating agency has proceeded against one Bhara
and Bhajan, who allegedly acted as a middle men and Ranjit Bhatia,
to whom the skin and bones were sold. Separate complaints have
been filed against them and the cases are pending before this Court.
Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in their confessional statements stated about their
involvement in acquiring and selling the body parts of the tiger. The
body parts of the hunted tiger is a government property and accused
Nos. 1 to 3 acted in contravention of Sec. 39(3). There is no evidence
that, accused Nos. 4 to 6 have played any role in selling the body parts
of the killed tiger. No offence can be said to be proved against the
accused Nos. 4 to 6. However, evidence available on record, clearly
shows that accused Nos.1 to 3 have contravened the provisions of
Sec.39(3) punishable U/sec. 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972. Hence, I answer this point as 'proved' against accused Nos. 1 to
3.
61. Before parting with the judgment, I cannot prevent
myself from recording the words of appreciation for Shri U.S.
Deshmukh, learned Special Counsel appearing for the complainant,
Shri A.R. Phuse, learned counsel for the accused Nos. 1 to 5 and Shri
P.V. Mahalle, learned counsel for the accused No.6 who ably assisted
as well as co-operated this Court in completing the trial of Under
Trial Prisoners expeditiously and thus rendered valuable services in
the justice delivering system.
62. In view of my aforesaid discussion and findings on
the point under consideration, I hold that the accused Nos.1 to 3 have
committed the offences by contravening the provisions of Sec.9, 27,
29, 30, 31 and 39(3) punishable U/secs. 51(1) and 51(1C) of the Wild
Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Hence, I stop here, to hear the accused
on the point of sentence.
(J.N. Raje)
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Amravati.
Dt/- 18.06.2014.
63. I have heard accused No.1 Madhusingh, accused
No.2 Chintaram and accused No.3 Vinod, their learned advocate Shri
A.R. Phuse and Shri U.S. Deshmukh, learned Special Counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant on the point of sentence. It is
submitted by the accused that, their financial condition is very poor
and they are having small kids, the entire family is depending upon
them. Therefore, lenient view may be taken while awarding the
sentence. Learned advocate for the accused submitted that, accused
Nos. 1 to 3 are the first offenders and considering their age, minimum
punishment be awarded. As against it, it is submitted by Shri U.S.
Deshmukh, learned Special Counsel for the complainant that, accused
have hunted a tiger in a Tiger Reserve. The nature of the offence is
serious one and therefore, maximum punishment be awarded.
64. Having considered the submissions made on behalf
of both the sides, we will have to take into account the nature of the
offence, character of the offender. It is contended that, accused are
the first offenders, however, it has been established that, accused
entered into core area of forest with an intention to kill the tiger, they
stayed in the jungle for three days and succeeded in hunting the tiger.
The offences proved against the accused are not only serious and
grave, but it has wide and long term adverse effect and ramification
on the very Eco system. The incident of hunting projected great
challenge to the very safety of the humanity. Since the said act of
hunting inevitably disturb the food chain in jungle and thereby
intruding of carnivorous in the human habitat. In view of this matter,
the incident of hunting of tiger cannot be taken in lighter vein.
Accordingly, I am of the firm opinion that, the benefit of provisions of
the Probation of Offenders Act, cannot be extended to the accused, as
they are a`not below the age of twenty-one years and they deserve
reasonable and substantive punishment as provided by law. With this,
I proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Accused No.1 namely Madhusingh s/o Leharsingh
Rathod, accused No. 2. Chintaram s/o Leharsingh Rathod and
accused No.3. Vinod s/o Premlal Pawar, All R/o Sinband
(Motakheda), Tq. Chikhaldara, District Amravati, are hereby
convicted U/sec. 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as under.
2. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are convicted for contravention of
Sec.9 punishable U/sec. 51(1C) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972. They are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Five
Years, each and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand)
each. In default of payment of fine amount, the defaulting accused to
undergo further Simple Imprisonment for One Year.
3. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are further convicted for
contravention of Sec.27 punishable U/sec. 51(1) of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972. They are sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for One Year, each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
( Rupees One Thousand) each. In default of payment of fine amount,
the defaulting accused to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for
One Month.
4. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are further convicted for
contravention of Sec.29 punishable U/sec. 51(1) of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972. They are sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for One Year, each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
( Rupees One Thousand) each. In default of payment of fine amount,
the defaulting accused to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for
One Month.
5. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are further convicted for contravention
of Sec.30 punishable U/sec. 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972. They are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for One
Year, each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- ( Rupees One Thousand)
undergo further Simple Imprisonment for One Month.
of Sec.31 punishable U/sec. 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972. They are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for One
Year, each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- ( Rupees One Thousand)
undergo further Simple Imprisonment for One Month.
of Sec.39(3) punishable U/sec. 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972. They are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for
One Year, each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- ( Rupees One
Thousand) each. In default of payment of fine amount, the defaulting
accused to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for One Month.
8. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
9. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are in jail since 04.03.2013 till to
date. Set off for the period already undergone by them, be given, in
substantive sentences U/sec. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. Accused No. 4 namely Sagarlal s/o Gorelal Pawar, R/o
Sinband (Motakheda), Tq. Chikhaldara, District Amravati, accused
No.5. Narvilal Ruchlesingh Pawar, R/o Sawalikheda, Tq.
Chikhaldara,District Amravati and accused No.6. Mishrilal Jugdya
Chauhan, R/o Mothakheda, Tq. Chikhaldara, District Amravati are
hereby acquitted u/sec. 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of
the offence U/sec. 9 punishable U/sec. 51(1D) r/w. Sec. 51(1C) and
for the offence punishable U/sec. 39(3) r/w. Sec. 51(1C) of the Wild
Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
11. Accused Nos. 4 to 6 are in jail. They be set at liberty
forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
12. Separate trial against approver Anesh Chhattarsingh
Rathod, follows as per Sec. 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
13. Seized property be preserved for the trial to be conducted
against approver Anesh Chhattarsingh Rathod.
14. Copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused Nos. 1
to 3, free of costs.
Date: 18.06.2014. (J.N. Raje)
Amravati. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Amravati.

Melghat Tiger Poaching Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Melghat Tiger Poaching Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Melghat Tiger Poaching Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

- 1 - Judgment in RCC No.

You might also like