Gura Purty vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2763 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2015

Gura Purty s/o late Joka Purty r/o village-Mahudi Tola, Jarkasai PO & PS-
Noamudi, District-West Singhbhum                           .... . Petitioner
                                  Versus
The State of Jharkhand                                  ... Opposite Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioner       : Mr. S.K. Upadhyay, Advocate
For the State            : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, Spl. PP
                                    -------

Order No.07 /Dated: 20th July 2022

The petitioner seeks interference by this Court with the order of conviction under sections 9, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the order of sentence of SI for one year for the aforesaid offence, both dated 8th July 2014, passed in T.R No. 236 of 2014 arising out of C/3 Case No. 59 of 2010, as affirmed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2014.

2. C/3 Case No. 59 of 2010 was initiated on the basis of the prosecution report submitted by Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa. The said prosecution report was based on the enquiry conducted on the information received on 11th December 2010 that some persons at Mohadi Protected Forest had hunted a wild animal. In course of trial, 8 witnesses were examined to support the charge for commission of the aforesaid offence by the petitioner and co-accused Gangaram Laguri.

3. The prosecution case is that on the basis of an information received on 11th December 2010 by Rameshwar Bandia who was posted as Forest Guard a search was conducted on 16th December 2010 during which two nails and one teeth of a leopard were seized from the house of the petitioner in presence of three witnesses. The other accused, however, escaped when he saw the raiding team at village Sarbil.

4. The learned trial Judge dealt with the evidences laid before him in the following manner:

"17. Heard the argument advanced on behalf of both the parties and perused the entire case record thoroughly. From perusal of the case record as well as the deposition of the witnesses it appears

that PW-1 has stated in para-2 that on search made in the house of accused Gura Purty one piece of skin, one teeth and the nails were recovered from the pocket of the pant. On the basis of disclosure name of accused Ganga Ram Laguri that he was also involved in hunting with him. In para-3 this witness has deposed that, they along with village Munda went to the house of Ganga Ram Laguri and made a raid and had seized skin and three bundles of electric wire. The seized skin was of the leopard. He also stated in para-5 that on the basis of the statement of accused Gura Purty he has made accused to the other persons. PW-2 in para-2 has deposed after search he had gone to place of occurrence and he has putted his signature in the seizure list which is marked as Ext-2 and 3 respectively. But in his cross-examination he has stated that from whose house which article was recovered he doesn't know. PW-3 in para-1 on raid made in the house of accused Gura Purty two nails and one teeth was recovered and seizure list of these articles were prepared, which is marked as Ext-2/1. On the search made in the house of Ganga Ram Laguri skin of the leopard, three bundles of electric wire was recovered and seizure list was prepared which is marked as Ext-3/1. PW-4 in para-3 has deposed that raid was made in the house of accused Gura Purty, on search two teeth and one nail of the leopard was recovered from the pant's pocket, he identified the seizure list which is marked as Ext-2/2. In para-3 he stated that raid was also made in the house of accused Ganga Ram Laguri and skin of leopard and three bundles of electric wire was seized. PW-5 has stated that he has not seen the incident taking place. PW-6 is the hearsay witness in para-2 he has stated that he had heard that search was made in the house of Gura Purty. PW-7 in his cross-examination has deposed in para-3 that he doesn't know whose place raid was made. PW-8 is declared hostile.

In this case, in the prosecution report allegation against accused persons, namely, Gura Purty, Batu Purty, Jaipal Purty, Rajan Hembrom, Kandey Hembrom, Gangaram Laguri, Seregeya Laguri, Sonaram Laguri are leveled for the consume the meat of that wild animal. On the basis of confessional statement made before the forest officials it has been stated by the accused Gura Purty that meat of the animal was sold in the market and it was purchased by the accused persons. But regarding this point none of the prosecution witnesses has uttered a single word in the examination-in-chief.

Further regarding the other alleged charge on accused Gura Purty and Ganga Ram Laguri on the basis of the search made by the Forest Officials in the house of Gura Purty piece of skin, teeth and nail was recovered.

As per sec. 9 of the Wild Life Protection Act lays down that, "Prohibition of hunting": No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedule I, II, III and IV except as provided u/s 11 and 12.

Sec. 51(1). Penalties: Any person who [contravenes any provision of this act [(except Chapter V-A] and section 38-J)] or any rule or order made thereunder or who commits a breach of any of the conditions of any licence or permit granted under this Act, shall be guilty of an offence against this act.

Sec.52. Attempts and abetment: Whoever attempts to contravene, or abets the contravention of, any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule or order made thereunder shall be deemed to have contravened that provision or rule or order, as the case may be.

As per the evidence brought in this case by the prosecution and the articles seized from the house of both the accused persons

leads their involvement in the hunting of the wild animal and it is an offence to do hunting in the forest area, as well as to deal with the parts of the wild animals. Hence the charges u/ss:9/51/52 of Wild Life Protection Act is proved against accused persons, namely, Gura Purty and Ganga Ram Laguri."

5. As noticed above, the appellate Court did not accept challenge laid by the petitioner to the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded in T.R No. 236 of 2014 for the following reasons:

"8. From the aforesaid discussion of evidence available on record, it is crystal clear that, just after hunting of a leopard, its skin, nail, teeth were recovered from the possession of appellant Gura Purty. The appellant Gura Purty has also given a voluntary disclosure statement before forest officials which has been deposed by (PW-4) Forester Abhay Kumar. The appellant Gura Purty went with forest officials to the house of another co-accused Gangaram Laguri (another appellant) from where electric wire, big piece of leopard skin were also seized in presence of witnesses. The forest officials are not police officers, hence the disclosure statement given by the accused Gura Purty even if confessional is not hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. Further, the method applied by the accused persons in hunting the wild animal as deposed by PW-4 also suggests that the hunting of leopard was committed by setting electric wire current and mark of struggle or tumbling of the hunted leopard was also found, just prior to recovery of the skin, teeth and nails of the leopard."

6. Mr. S.K. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a tribal from whose house recovery of two nails and skin of leopard have been shown but seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the evidence of PW2, PW7 and PW8 to lay support to the submission that in absence of cogent evidence regarding seizure of incriminating articles conviction under sections 9, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 cannot be recorded.

7. PW2 stated in the Court about purchase of leopard skin and nails from Sarbil village and those articles were handed over to the Forest Guard who later on visited the village. A seizure list vide Ext.-2 was prepared by Abhay Kumar another Forest Guard showing seizure of teeth, electric wire and big piece of leopard skin seized from the house of co-accused Gangaram Laguri. PW7 has denied knowledge in the Court from whose possession leopard skin, teeth and nails were recovered, and PW8 was declared hostile.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the custody of the petitioner undergone by him between 16 th December 2010

to 4th March 2011 and between 19th November 2014 to 27th March 2015, which period comes about seven months to submit that the petitioner may be let off by awarding punishment already undergone by him.

9. No doubt both Courts have accepted the prosecution case and held the petitioner guilty, this Court finds that there are mitigating circumstances to interfere with the order of sentence of SI for one year awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial Court in T.R No. 236 of 2014. One of the circumstances appears to be violation of section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 seizure evidence being tentative and rigors of a criminal case in the last one decade.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and, accordingly, while affirming the judgment of conviction dated 8th July 2014 passed in T.R No. 236 of 2014 arising out of C/3 Case No. 59 of 2010 under sections 9, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the order of sentence dated 8th July 2014 of SI for one year is set aside and the petitioner is awarded punishment of the period already undergone by him.

11. The petitioner is, accordingly, discharged of the liability of the bail- bonds furnished by him pursuant to the order dated 27 th March 2015 passed by this Court while granting bail to him.

12. Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2015 stands partly allowed.

13. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through "Fax".

14. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) sudhir