JUDGMENT

Arun D. Upadhye, J. (Oral) - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.01.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deulgaonraja in Regular Criminal Case No. 6/99, the Appellant-State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal.

2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2003, all the accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under section 9 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and section 261 (i) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The brief facts of the case are as under:

3. The complainant Range Forest Officer and the Assistant Wildlife Conservator have filed the complaint. According to the prosecution, Mehkar Forest is declared as reserve forest and also reserved for the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.4.1998 there was hunting of Nilgai in the reserve forest of Pimparkhed Tq. Sindkhed Raja, Dist. Buldana. According to the prosecution, on that day, the accused went towards Khairkhed Forest and hunted Nilgai. Thereafter, all the accused brought one jeep on hire and lifted Nilgai to village Pimparkhed, they cut the meat of the Nilgai and distributed amongst them. It is also alleged that they burnt the skin of Nilgai.

4. The prosecution also came with a case that the Forest Officer has recorded the statement of all the accused on 30.6.1998, the accused have given confession statement and admitted the guilt. After completion of necessary investigation, the complaint was lodged before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deulgaon Raja.

5. All the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, a charge came to be framed against them and they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. After recording the evidence in the matter of hearing both the sides, the learned Magistrate has acquitted all the accused by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.1.2003. The said order is assailed by the State of Maharashtra by way of filing appeal.

6. I have heard Shri N.R. Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri A.J. Thakkar, learned counsel for the accused at length. Shri Patil, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the learned Magistrate has wrongly acquitted the accused for the offence charged. The learned Magistrate should have considered the confessional statement of the accused and convicted them. The appeal filed by the State, therefore, be allowed.

7. Shri A.J. Thakkar, learned counsel for the accused has vehemently submitted that the confessional statement was neither proved nor Exhibit-ed and, therefore, the same cannot be considered. He further submitted that there are contrary statements of witnesses recorded by the State and confessional statement of the accused. He also submitted that no chemical analyser report is filed on record in respect of blood and dung. The alleged offence is shown on 26.4.1998, the complaint was filed on 30.6.1998 and therefore there is a delay in lodging the complaint and same is not explained by prosecution. He further submitted that no question of incriminating circumstances were put to the accused except accused no.1 Tukaram. The learned Magistrate has rightly considered the evidence on record and acquitted the accused and therefore, no interference by this Court is called for.

8. Considering the submission of both the sides and having gone through the evidence on record, I find much substance in the submission of learned counsel for the accused. The impugned judgment dated 24.12.003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deulgaon Raja in Regular Criminal Case No. 6/99 does not require interference of this Court.

9. The prosecution has strongly relied upon evidences of P.W. 4 Prakash Madhavrao Kedar (Forest Guard) examined at Exhibit-42, P.W. 7 Ramdular Ramnandan Yadeo (Vanpal) at Exhibit-51, P.W. 8 Pandurang Sakharamji Musale (R.F.O.) Exhibit-59 and P.W. 9 Vidhyasagar Malhari Misalkar at Exhibit-62. The evidences of all these witnesses will have to be considered and examined minutely.

10.