Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
Krishna Rao, J.
Rajani Kanto Burman - Petitioner
Versus
The State and Another - Respondents
CRR/9/2022
Decided On : 28-04-2023
Wild Life Protection - Conviction under sections 9/39/40/50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - The court found that the seizure memo and expert report were not proved by the prosecution, leading to the conclusion that the findings of both the courts below were perverse.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for possessing 4 kg of Andaman Wild Pig meat under sections 9/39/40/50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The petitioner appealed the judgment, arguing lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure memo and expert report, leading to the conclusion that the findings of both the courts below were perverse.
Issues: Lack of evidence, procedural irregularities, reliance on unproved seizure memo and expert report.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution's failure to prove the seizure memo and expert report led to the court's decision to set aside the judgments of the lower courts and acquit the petitioner.
Final Decision: The judgments of the lower courts were set aside and quashed, and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The prosecution's failure to prove crucial evidence such as the seizure memo and expert report led to the court's decision to set aside the lower courts' judgments and acquit the petitioner (!) (!) .
The seizure memo lacked specific details regarding the place and time of seizure, raising doubts about the authenticity of the seizure of the wild pig meat (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence regarding the seizure of the sample used for expert analysis was not sufficiently proved, as the prosecution did not produce the seizure memo or other documents related to the sample, nor did they examine the witnesses who signed the expert report (!) (!) (!) .
The expert report was not proved during the trial because the expert was not produced as a witness and was not cross-examined, which compromised the reliability of the report (!) .
The veterinary examination could not conclusively identify the meat as wild pig due to the lack of laboratory facilities, and the certificate indicated that the meat could not be distinguished from domestic pork (!) .
The courts below relied heavily on the expert report and the seizure memo, both of which lacked proper proof and procedural validity, rendering their findings perverse (!) .
The court emphasized that the failure to establish the seizure details and the admissibility of the expert evidence undermines the case against the petitioner, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner must be acquitted (!) (!) .
The order of acquittal includes discharging the petitioner from bail bonds and sending the lower court records back to the lower court for further proceedings (!) (!) .
The decision was made to act on the server copy of the order, and the parties are entitled to obtain certified copies upon request and compliance with formalities (!) (!) .
In summary, the court found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the case, particularly the proof of seizure and expert examination, which led to the acquittal of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Rao, J.
1. The petitioner had preferred the present revisional application against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021 (Rajani Kanto Burman vs. Range Officer –cum-Assistant Wildlife Warden, Diglipur) dated 28th February, 2022 wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021 by upholding the order of conviction dated 25th January, 2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder in connection with complaint case No.5 of 2011 for the offence punishable under sections 9/39/40/50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
2. The facts of the case are that on 14th December, 2010 at around 1930 hours, Shri Pankaj Sius, Forest Guard received information regarding illegal selling of meat of Andaman Wild Pig at Sitanagar, Diglipur and on receipt of said information, the said Forest Guard immediately along with Assistant Beat Officer, Shri Abdul Saleem, Forest Guard reached at Sitanagar and on reaching, they found that the Mobile Squad staff, Shri Arun Sarkar, Forester and Shri Kashmir Kerketta, Forest Guard carrying out patrolling duty at Sitanagar.
3. During the course of patrolling at about 2130 hours, Shri Pankaj Sius and Shri Abdul Saleem, identified three persons coming from Bairagi Kona and on suspicion the Beat Officer, Shri Pankaj Sius approached them and on seeing forest official, two out of three persons ran away into the forest area and the Beat Officer caught the petitioner and immediately Shri Pankaj Sius had called Mobile Squad Staff for his assistance and on checking, two plastic bags containing 4 kg of meat of Wild Pig was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
4. Shri Pankaj Sius, Forest Guard, Beat Officer, Sitanagar seized 4 (four) kgs of meat of Andaman Wild Pig along with plastic bag at the spot under section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 under the cover of seizure memo in presence of the witnesses and the petitioner was taken into custody.
5. The Forest Guard, Beat Officer had brought the petitioner to the Range Officer at Dilglipur at about 2245 hours and handed over the petitioner to the Assistant Wild Life Wardern and thereafter the petitioner was arrested at about 2330 hours. The seized wildlife was produced before the Assistant Veterinary Surgeon for examination and on examination, the complaint had obtained necessary certificate wherein the Assistant Veterinary Surgeon reported that the meat is of a pig but he it cannot be distinguish from domestic pig or wild pig due to non-availability of laboratory facilities.
6. The petitioner was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the seizure intimation was given to the learned Magistrate with the prayer that the complainant may be allowed to preserve the sample of 200 grams of the seized Andaman Wild Pig meat for further investigation and to destroy the rest of the seized which are perishable by burying deep beneath in the soil.
7. As per the direction of the learned Magistrate, a sample approximately 200 grams was preserved and sealed in presence of the Divisional Forest Officer, Diglipur and three independent witnesses and rest of the seized materials were buried. The part of preserve sample was sent to the Zoology Survey of India, Port Blair on 03.01.2011, for identification of the seized meats and the complainant had received the report which identified the said meat was wild animal, namely Andaman Wild Pig listed animal in Schedule-I of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
8. On completion of enquiry a regular complaint was made before the learned Magistrate at Mayabunder against the petitioner and two other persons for the offence punishable under sections 9/39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
9. On completion of trial, the learned Magistrate has passed the judgment on 25.01.2021 wherein the petitioner was guilty for the offence under sections 9/39
The prosecution must prove crucial evidence, such as seizure memos and expert reports, to support convictions under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Unrebutted evidence collected by prosecution appears to be quite enough for holding accused guilty under Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, and for that both Courts below have been fully justifi....
Appellate courts cannot order retrial solely to enable prosecution to remedy deficiencies their case.
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....
The judgment emphasizes the sufficiency and reliability of evidence in upholding the conviction and sentence for the illegal trade of wild animal products, and highlights the importance of deterrent ....
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....
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
