Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah.Thr.The Range ... vs Kalimohan Manidra Sarkar And 4 ... on 24 May, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
apeal746.03
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 746 of 2003
The State of Maharashtra,
through the Range Officer,
Allapalli,
Tq. Aheri, Distt. Gadchiroli. ..... Appellant
Versus
1. Kalimohan son of Manindra
Sarkar,
aged about 32 years,
2. Milan son of Nikunj Roy,
aged about 18 years,
3. Vijay son of Debu Patra,
aged about 18 years,
4. Biren son of Rajan Dakuwa,
aged about 23 years,
5. Sudhir son of Nanigopal Potdar,
aged about 24 years,
all respondents nos. 1 to 5
residents of Deshbandhugram,
Tq. Mulchera,
::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:53:30 :::
apeal746.03
2
Distt. Gadchiroli. ..... Respondents.
*****
Mr. N. R. Patil, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State.
None for the respondents.
*****
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Date : 24th May, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT:
01. The State of Maharashtra has challenged the judgment
dated 24th September, 2003 in Regular Criminal Case No. 8 of 2001
whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the the offence under
Section 9 punishable under Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act,
1972.
02. It is the case of the prosecution that on 6th May, 1996, a
spotted deer had come to drink water from the reserved forest near
village Deshbandhugram. The deer was chased by five-six dogs and
hence it started to run towards village. The respondents also chased
the said deer and respondent nos. 1 and 2 killed the deer by means of
an axe and stick. The Forest Officer on getting information visited the
spot and after investigating the matter, lodged a report. On that basis,
apeal746.03
the respondents were charged and tried. At the conclusion of the trial,
they came to be acquitted.
03. Shri N.R. Patil, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submitted
that there was sufficient evidence on record to indicate the complicity
of the respondents in committing the offence in question. He
submitted that all the respondents had chased the said deer and had
thereafter inflicted blows on it, resulting in its death. He referred to
the material on record to substantiate his contentions.
04. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.
However, with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant, I
have perused the records.
05. The prosecution to prove its case examined three witnesses.
PW 1 at Exh.42 was the Police Patil. He, however, did not support the
case of the prosecution. He was,in fact, an auction purchaser of the
meat. PW 2 at Exh.45 was the Panch witness; but he too did not
support the case of the prosecution. He was also the auction
purchaser of the meat. The Range Forest Officer was examined as PW
3 at Exh.49. He has referred to the steps taken while investigating the
crime.
apeal746.03
06. On consideration of this evidence, the learned Magistrate
found that there was no direct evidence to connect the respondents
with the crime in question. The seizure of the carcass of the deer from
the accused at Exh.44 was not believed as it was inconsistent with the
case of the prosecution that the respondents had left the carcass of
the deer after killing it. The weapons used in the crime have also not
been recovered. The witnesses examined have not supported the
case of the prosecution. In short, there is no material, whatsoever, to
hold the respondents guilty of having committed the offence in
question. It is on that basis that they came to be acquitted.
07. In the light of this material on record, it cannot be said that
appreciation of this evidence is perverse warranting interference with
the order of acquittal. The prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment, therefore, does
not call for any interference. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed.
Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
apeal746.03
