IMPORTANT POINT
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 reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 15/9/2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal (except the modification of sentence) filed by the applicants/accused Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 against their conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli for the offences punishable under Ss. 9, 27, 29 and 31 read with Sec. 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short "the Act of 1972"). The learned Magistrate, on conviction, had sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300.00 each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. BACKGROUND FACTS :-

On the report of PW-2 Anand Meshram (Forest Guard), a Crime bearing No.158/2005 was registered on 16/8/2005. It is the case of prosecution that on 16/8/2005, PW-2 Anand Meshram (Forest Guard) had received a secret information that two Chitals (axis axis) were hunted in Nagzira Forest and the meat was sold at Village Heti. They visited the house of the accused No.1 by name Najuk Gahane. They took the house search and in the house search, they found that the meat was being cooked in a big pot. Accused No.1 admitted the purchase of the Chital meat from the other accused. The meat was seized under the panchanama. The information provided by accused No.1 led to arrest of the remaining accused. During the course of the investigation, the accused were arrested. The accused made confessional statements during the investigation. The accused led the Forest Officers to the spot where the Chitals were killed. From the spot, some parts of the Chitals and weapons were seized. The material used for laying the trap to catch the Chitals was also seized at the instance of the accused. The articles were seized by drawing panchanama. After completion of the investigation, the case was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli.

3. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to bring home the guilt against the accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, on consideration of the evidence, found the applicants/accused, guilty of the offences and sentenced them as above. The learned Magistrate acquitted the remaining accused. The appeal filed by the applicants/accused against their conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara. However, the learned Sessions Judge modified the substantive sentence and reduced it to six months from one year.

4. I have heard Mr. V.M. Vishwarupe, learned advocate holding for Mr. R.R. Vyas, learned advocate for the accused and Mr. A.R. Chutke, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record and proceedings.

5. Learned advocate for the accused submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the charge against the accused. Learned advocate took me through the evidence and pointed out the lacunas in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Learned advocate pointed out that the seized meat and other body parts of the Chitals were not sent to forensic laboratory for examination and analysis. Learned advocate submitted that, therefore, there is no evidence to prove that the meat and other body parts seized during the course of investigation were of Chitals. Learned advocate submitted that, therefore, the basic fact of killing the Chitals has not been proved. Learned advocate further submitted that the prosecution has heavily relied upon the confessional statements of the accused, recorded by the Forest Officers during the course of investigation. Learned advocate submitted that the evidence on record clearly indicates that the confessions were not recorded by the Competent Officer in terms of Sec. 50(8) of the Act of 1972. Learned advocate further submitted that the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove that the confessional statements were