Back
G. A. SANAP
Vinod Diwakar Sontakke – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through Assistant Conservator of Forests – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Taken up for disposal forthwith with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
3. These revision applications arise out of the judgment and order dated 17.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Gadchiroli and therefore, the same are being disposed of by the common judgment. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.06.2023 dismissed the appeals filed by the applicants/accused against their conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli for the offence punishable under Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (For short ‘Act of 1972’). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli vide judgment and order dated 04.09.2018 had convicted the accused and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month.
4. Background facts:
The case was registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint filed by PW-1 Mr. Mohan Naikwade, the then Assistant Conservator of Forest, Gadchiroli. The case of the Forest Department a
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict requirement of confessions to be recorded by an authorized officer not below a specified rank, as mandated by the Wildlife (Protectio....
Transportation of huge quantity of wild animal products – Sentence awarded by Court must be an example by way of deterrence for others—In such crimes, misplaced sympathy while awarding sentence can s....
Confessions made under the Indian Forest Act must be voluntary and recorded in compliance with established procedural safeguards; failure to adhere to these requirements can lead to the exclusion of ....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as mere moral conviction is insufficient for conviction in criminal cases.
Testimony of an expert is at best an opinion, which has to be given due weight by Court. Satisfaction arrived at by Court cannot be substituted with opinion of expert.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must establish a consistent and unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime, and any reliance on unreliability of recovery evidence warrants the benef....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
