Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jumman Shah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28695
1 CRR-528-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 528 of 2025
JUMMAN SHAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajiv Nayan Mishra - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Chandrakant Mishra - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under
Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.01.2025 passed in
Cr.A.No.77/2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District -Panna
whereby the Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 24.11.2021 passed in Criminal Case No.70/2016 by
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pawai, District- Panna whereby the
applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the
Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years
with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.
2. In nutshell, the prosecution case before the trial Court was that on
04.12.2015 at 01:30 PM, Beet Guard Karondi along with the security
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28695
2 CRR-528-2025
labourer visited Beet Karondi Compartment No.P-942 where a person was
caught with cooked meat and gun and tools from the spot of the incident. On
enquiry, he told his name to be Jumman Shah and told that he had hunted a
Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus) in the forest area adjacent to his field with
a licensed gun along with his son Akram and Akram seeing the forest party
had absconded. Confession statements were recorded and after investigation,
the complaint for violation of Sections 2, 9, 39, 50, 51 and 52 of the Wild
Life Protection Act, 1972 was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Pawai, District - Panna (M.P.).
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant
is innocent. The forest officers themselves have admitted that wild animal
was hunted by the son of this applicant, who after seeing the forest team, ran
away from the spot and is still absconding. The applicant was not involved in
the offence and from his confessional statement, nothing has been brought
against the applicant. Prosecution has not examined Scientific Officer who
has examined the meat and remains of dead animal and on that basis, it could
not be held that the articles recovered from the spot belong to Nilgai
(Boselaphus tragocamelus) and also submitted that the trial Court and the
Appellate Court have not considered this aspect, hence the applicant be
acquitted.
4. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned
judgment and submitted that the trial Court and the Appellate Court have
rightly convicted the applicant. Hence, no case for interference is called for.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28695
3 CRR-528-2025
record.
6. I have gone through the statement of Bhgwandas (PW-1) who has
stated that he along with the other forest officials was in patrolling and went
in the agricultural field of Jumman Shah. Forest staff had told that in
Shahnagar, a forest animal has been killed, when they reached in the field of
Jumman Shah, Akram was found there. The forest staff tried to caught hold
Akram but he ran away. Jumman and his father Basheer were found and
Jumman was arrested on the spot. Head of Nilgai, 4 hoops, gun, a packet
containing gun powder, a gunny bag of cement and an axe were found and
were recovered. This fact has been supported by the Kripal Lodhi (PW-2),
Umesh Pratap Singh (PW-3), Pushpendra Singh (PW-4), Rajendra Prasad
Arjariya (PW-5).
7. Umesh Pratap Singh (PW3) prepared the spot Panchnama
(Exhibit-P/1). Seizure memo (Exhibit-P/2) and POR (Exhibit-P/15) were
written by Pushpendra Singh, Forest Guard (PW-4). Statement of Jumman
Shah was recorded by Umesh Pratap Singh.
8. From the statement of prosecution witnesses, it is also clear that
search, seizure and arrest were made from the agricultural land of the
applicant. In Para No.4 of cross-examination of Kripal Lodhi (PW-2) has
admitted that the meat of goat and Nilgai is of same type.
9. Witness, Umesh Pratap Singh (PW-3) in his chief-examination, has
clearly stated that when they reached on the spot, applicant's son was having
a gun and after seeing them, left the gun and ran away. The forest team
chased him but he was successful in escaping.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28695
4 CRR-528-2025
10. The same fact has been stated by Pushpendra Singh (PW-4) and
he stated that two persons were found. One was successful in running and
another was arrested.
11. Witness, Rajendra Prasad Arjariya (PW-5) has also stated that
when he reached on the spot, Akram after seeing them, ran away from the
spot. They chased him but he was successful and ran away. This witness has
further stated that during interrogation, Jumman Shah has clearly stated that
his son Akram has hunted the wild animal by his gun. In the confessional
statement (Exhibit-P/16) recorded by the forest officials, the applicant has
stated that his son Akram has hunted the wild animal and after hunting, he
was selling the meat of that wild animal to the villagers and two times, his
son had hunted the wild animal. He has not said in Exhibit -P/16 that anyhow
he has hunted the wild animal. His son was found present on the spot and
when the forest official tried to catch him, he was successful in running from
the spot.
12. Thus, from the statements of prosecution witnesses and
confession recorded by the forest officers, it is clear that Akram was the
person who has hunted wild animal Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus) and
not this person.
13. Furthermore, the prosecution has not examined the scientific
officer who has concluded that the meat recovered from the spot was
o f Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus) as Dr. Nidhi Rajpoot had not been
examined and prosecution had not filed any notification that Dr. Nidhi
Rajpoot is absolved by any notification and report itself be used without
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28695
5 CRR-528-2025
statement of Dr. Nidhi Rajpoot. Hence, the prosecution has also failed to
prove that the meat recovered from the spot was of Nilgai (Boselaphus
tragocamelus). Only on the basis of marking exhibits, it cannot be said that
the report was proved. It was also not shown when the wild animal was
hunted and from spot only 500 grams of meat was recovered. The body parts
of the wild animal were recovered has not been proved by independent
witness or expert witness.
14. After above discussion, it is also not proved that with the
consent, his son had hunted the wild animal, hence, the applicant could not
be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 9 r/w 51 of the Wild
Life Protection Act, 1972.
15. Hence, the trial Court and the Appellate Court committed
illegality in convicting and sentencing the applicant for that offence, hence,
the conviction of the applicant is quashed and sentence is also set aside.
16. Accordingly, this criminal revision is hereby allowed.
17. If the applicant is not required in any other case, he shall be
released forthwith.
18. With the copy of this order, record of the trial Court be returned
back.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
VB*
