Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT NAGPUR
ANIL L. PANSARE, J.
Firoz Shah S/o Babbu Shah – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 94 of 2022
Decided On : 21-12-2023
Wildlife Protection Act - Conviction under Sections 40(1)(2), 48(A), 44 and 49(B) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the admissibility of confessional statements recorded by a Range Forest Officer and the requirement of compliance with sub-section 8 of Section 50 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The judgment emphasized the necessity of confessions being recorded by an authorized officer not below the rank of an Assistant Director of Wildlife Preservation or an Assistant Conservator of Forests, as mandated by the Act. The court highlighted the inadmissibility of confessions recorded by an officer below the specified rank, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted for contravention of sections of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, for hunting a Panther and possessing its skin. The prosecution's case relied heavily on confessional statements and alleged possession of the skin by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confessional statements, recorded by a Range Forest Officer instead of an authorized officer as mandated by the Act, were inadmissible. It highlighted multiple discrepancies in the investigation and lack of evidence to connect the accused with the crime, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of confessional statements, compliance with the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the accused's involvement in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the strict compliance with sub-section 8 of Section 50 of the Act, which mandates confessions to be recorded by an authorized officer not below a specified rank. Non-compliance with this provision rendered the confessional statements inadmissible, leading to the lack of evidence against the accused.
Final Decision: The court quashed the judgments of the lower courts and acquitted the accused, highlighting the inadmissibility of confessional statements and lack of evidence to establish their involvement in the crime.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL L. PANSARE, J.
1. The applicants/original accused nos. 1 to 4 have questioned the legality, correctness and propriety of the judgment and order dated 28/3/2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2016, thereby dismissing the appeal by which the applicants had challenged the judgment and order dated 9/3/2016 passed by the learned Joint Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No. 1022/2014. The learned Magistrate has convicted the applicants for contravention of Sections 40(1)(2), 48(A), 44 and 49(B) punishable under Sections 51, 51, 51 and 51(1-A) respectively of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short “the Act”). The maximum punishment imposed is of three years. The appeal having been dismissed, the conviction of the applicants has been upheld.
2. The facts, which are necessary to decide the present application, are as under:
3. Thereafter, the skin and two teeth of the Panther were removed and kept at the house of Bhimrao. Later on, Bhimrao met one person named Tepa (not made accused). Bhimrao asked Tepa to search for a customer for Panther’s skin. After few days, Tepa, Mama (not made accused) and applicant/accused no. 4-Pawan met Bhimrao and informed him that they have a customer and instructed him to bring the skin at Kundi Village, when so directed. After few days, Tepa and Pawan along with applicant/accused no. 1-Firoz and applicant/accused no. 2-Dinesh came to Kundi Village where Bhimrao showed them the Panther’s skin. Thereafter, Pawan told him to take back the skin and to wait for further instructions.
4. After few days, Pawan instructed Bhimrao to bring the skin. Bhimrao went to Pawan’s house. Next day, they approached one Vinod Raut (Absconding Accused) and handed over the skin to him in the presence of applicant/accused no. 3-Prashant @ Golu. Thereafter, Prashant and Vinod brought the Panther’s skin to Farid Baba Hill. Prashant informed Firoz about the possession of Panther’s skin.
5. On 31/8/2014, one Vikas (not made accused) instructed Firoz to bring Panther’s skin at Warud road to fix the deal. Firoz and Dinesh accordingly went in an Omni Car. Prashant and Vinod handed over the skin to Firoz and Dinesh. The skin was kept in Omni Car. Thus, applicant no. 1-Firoz and applicant no. 2-Dinesh were in possession of the skin. Vinod proceeded on motorcycle and asked them to follow him. Prashant, who was on another motorcycle said that he will follow the Omni Car. They all stopped at some distance from Warud. They called Vikas, who came with the party (punter) and took the Panther’s skin in their possession. In few moments, 5-6 people came there and apprehended them.
6. Thereafter, the Preliminary Offence Report (POR) was registered. The investigation was carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed.
7. It appears that accused nos. 5 and 6, who were convicted, have not challenged the judgment and have undergone the imprisonment. The applicants have unsuccessfully challenged the judgment. The present revision has been filed mainly on the ground that the confessional statements of accused nos. 1 to 6 were not recorded in terms of sub-section 8 of Section 50 of the Act.
8. Having heard both the sides, it is evident that the entire story of prosecution, as has been narrated above, has been extracted fr
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....
Confessions made under the Wild Life (Protection) Act must be recorded in strict compliance with legal safeguards to be admissible, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reas....
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 ....
Section 50(8) authorises an officer not below rank of Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Assistant Conservator of Forests to receive and record evidence.
Section 50(8) authorises an officer not below rank of Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Assistant Conservator of Forests to receive and record evidence.
Conviction supported by evidence recovered from premises, regardless of ownership claims.
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
