Feran Adiwasi vs State Of M.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 799 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Feran Adiwasi vs State Of M.P. on 15 May, 2025

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

           1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                AT G WA L I O R
                           BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                     Cr.R. No. 830 of 2006

BETWEEN:-
FERAN ADIWASI, S/O ANGAD ADIWASI,
AGED-50 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE-KHAJOORI
COLONY, RAILWAY LINE KE PASS, POLICE
STATION SIRSOD, DISTRICT- SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)

HARI ADIWASI, S/O KHACHCHU ADIWASI
AGED- 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE-KHAJOORI
COLONY, RAILWAY LINE KE PASS, POLICE
STATION SIRSOD, DISTRICT- SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)


NARESH ADIWASI, S/O RAMSEWAK, AGED-
26 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE-KHAJOORI
COLONY, RAILWAY LINE KE PASS, POLICE
STATION SIRSOD, DISTRICT- SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                              .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI O.P. MATHUR- ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH                      RANGE
OFFICER/PARTIKSHETRA      ADHIKARI,
MADHAV RASTRIYA UDHYAN, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                             .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV- PUBLIC PROSECUTROR)
                2




Reserved           On             :       23.04.2025

Pronounced On                     :       15.05.2025

                             ORDER

1. This revision is preferred by the petitioners/accused persons

challenging the judgment dated 20/09/2006 passed by First Additional

Sessions Judge, Dist. Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal No. 390/2006, whereby

the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioners

challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

13.09.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Shivpuri in

criminal case No. 634/2005 whereby, the petitioners have been

convicted under Section 9, 27, 36 (6) r/w section 51 of the Wild Life

Protection Act, 1972 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of

two years each with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 22.09.2005, Forest Guard

Rajendra Soni along with Forest Guards Laxminarayan Shakya and

Ramdas Jatav was on patrolling and during patrolling of reserve forest,

Beat Firna Forest Compartment No.8, they caught hold the

petitioners/accused persons and during the search recovered the dead body

of the child of the Blue Bull/नननननन and the dead body was found

beheaded and also blood stained sickle was recovered. Petitioners/accused

persons had illegally hunted the Blue Bull /नननननन. After investigation,

charge-sheet has been filed against them. Thereafter, trial court has framed

the charges against the accused persons under Sections 9, 27, 36 (6) r/w

section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. The petitioners/accused

persons abjured their guild and took a plea that they have been falsely

implicated in this matter. During the trial, prosecution has examined as

many as four witnesses and exhibited Ex. P/1 to P/8 in order to bring home

the charges against the petitioners/accused persons. But, petitioners did not

examine any witness. On appreciation of the evidence available on record,

the trial court has passed the impugned order and convicted the petitioners.

The appellate court also affirmed the judgement passed by the trial court.

Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have preferred this revision.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that there is material

contradictions and omissions in the statements of Forest Guards Ramdas

Jatav (PW-1), Laxaminarayan Shakya (PW-2) and Rajendra Kumar Soni

(PW-3). All these witnesses are the employees of the Forest Department

and they are the interested parties/witnesses in the case. Prosecution has

not examined any independent witness. Time was not mentioned in the

Panchanama (Ex.P/1). Seizure memo (Ex.P/2) was not signed by any of

the forest officers. Time of arrest has not been mentioned for all the accused

persons. Post mortem of the seized dead body of the Blue Bull /नननननन

was not duly proved by the prosecution. No trace map was proved by the

prosecution . Petitioners are poor laborers and they are not having any

criminal past. Hence, learned counsel for petitioners prayed that the

petition be allowed the impugned orders of conviction be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/State opposed the prayer and

prayed for its rejection by supporting the impugned judgements.

5. Both the parties are heard at length and perused the entire record with

due care.

6. Prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimony of the forest guards

Ramdas Jatav (PW-1), who is also the investigating officer. According to

him on 2.09.2005, during patrolling of Beat Jharna Compartment No.8,

along with Rajendra Kumar Soni and Laxminarayan Shakya, they caught

hold the present petitioners/accused persons and during the search, they

found the dead body of the calf of Blue Bull (Blue Bull /नननननन) which

was beheaded and also seized the blood stained sickle and prepared the

Panchnama and seizure memo Ex. P-1 to P-5. Forest guards

Laxaminayaran Shakya, Rajendra Kumar and Fiturilal also deposed in the

same manner. But, there is material contradiction and omission in the

statements of the forest guard Ramdas Jatav (PW-1). Ramdas Jatav in his

cross-examination categorically denied that they were conducting search

in that place prior to the incident. But, Laxminarayan PW-2 and Rajendra

Kumar Soni PW-3 and Fiturlal PW-4 did not support his statement.

Rajendra Kumar Soni PW-3 in paragraph 22 of his cross-examination

admits that other staff was not conducting patrolling with him. Rajendra

Kumar Soni in paragraph 10 admits that spot map was prepared by the

Deputy Ranger at Satanwada and they have signed the same there, but his

statement is not supported by the witnesses Ramdas Jatav and

Laxaminarayan and Fiturilal. Laxminayaran Shakya (PW-2) denied to

identify the petitioner No.3- Naresh. Looking to the aforesaid material

contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, their statement

appears to be doubtful.

7. Apart from above, the proceedings/investigation conducted by these

officials also appears to be doubtful on the following grounds:-

1. Seizure memo (Ex. P/20 was not singed by any forest officer,

2. No search warrant was obtained prior to the search of the present

petitioners,

3. Charge-sheet has been filed by the Range Officer S.K. Sharma, but

he was not examined before the trial court,

4. Ramdas Jatav and other forest guards did not send any proper

intimation to the higher officials regarding the information received

from the informant in respect of illegal hunting,

5. The seized sickle was not sent for its chemical examination,

6. Statements of PW-1 to PW-3 had been recorded by the Ranger

Fiturilal Jatav, but he did not mention the time in their statement.

Even in Panchnama (Ex P/7), the time was not mentioned,

7. The same time was mentioned in the arrest memo of all the accused

persons, which is not possible and appears doubtful,

8. All the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-4 are the employees of

forest department. No independent witness has been examined by

the prosecution, hence, the statements of all these interested

witnesses was not corroborated by the independent witnesses.

8. It is also noteworthy that provisions of Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. are

the mandatory and in case an Investigating Officer is unable to comply with

these provisions, he has to offer a satisfactory explanation and if the

explanation so furnished by him is found satisfactory, it can be said that

these has been compliance of the provisions of Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C.

Neither any effort was made by the Investigating Officer, the In-charge of

the raiding party, or the other members of the raiding party, to associate

independent witnesses, though available, nor any explanation was given in

regard to the non-compliance of the provisions of the Section 100(4) of the

Cr.P.C.. Non-compliance of these mandatory provisions is fatal for the

prosecution.

9. Another plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that seized

dead body of the wildlife animal was not sent for forensic or scientific

examination/analysis. Even the post mortem report of the dead body of the

wild animal was not proved by the prosecution. The concerned veterinary

doctor who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the wildlife

animal was not examined before the trial court. Therefore, in presence of

above material lapses, adverse influences can be drawn against the

prosecution. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that it is very doubtful that

the alleged dead body was of any scheduled wild animal.

10. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the trial court has ignored the material contradiction and

omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of any

independent witnesses, the statement of the departmental witnesses appear

to be doubtful. Prosecution has also failed to prove that the alleged

recovered dead body belongs to any scheduled wildlife animal

(नननननन/Blue Bull). Even the seized sickle was not sent for chemical

examination. There is no eye witnesses regarding hunting of the aforesaid

wildlife animal. Charge-sheet has been filed by S.K. Sharma, but he was

not examined during trial. As per Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act,

1972, nothing is available on record to show that S.K. Sharma was

authorized by the State Government or Central Government to lodge the

complaint against the accused persons/petitioners. Mandatory provision of

Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. was not duly complied with. Search warrant and

seizure memo which are in printed format are not signed by any of the

forest officer. Therefore, bare perusal of the documents Ex. P/1 to P/2 are

not found to be reliable one. Thus, the testimony of PW-1 to PW-4 does

not inspire confidence at all.

11. Hence, on the basis of the aforesaid discussions, it is found that the

prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the

petitioners/accused persons. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court

has ignored the non-compliance of mandatory provisions and lacunae

found in the prosecution's case.

12. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the trial court vide order

dated 13.09.2006 and order passed by the appellate Court dated 20.09.2006

do not deserve affirmation and accordingly, this revision petition is allowed

and aforesaid impugned orders are hereby set aside and petitioners are

acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The bail furnished by the

petitioners shall stand discharged.

13. This petition is allowed and disposed of.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE vishal

VISHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL UPADHYAY DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=5d5050008f4c040023a64cb030d9

UPADH c80d25cbf5f3eb4f56fa864a20db4fbe3d3e, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID - 7022936, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=637e939e833627ae8cc13d8

YAY 5e5f2383a287e83c6cdfa6347a00e4827723 14fe9, cn=VISHAL UPADHYAY Date: 2025.05.15 14:41:17 +05'30'