(1) Questioning the legal acceptability of impugned judgment affirming the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate passed in Criminal Case No.352/98 by which the trial Magistrate has recorded the finding of conviction against the applicant for offence under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (henceforth 'the Act, 1972') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000.

(2) The core facts required for adjudication of this revision are as under:

(2.1) On 24-3-1998, the applicant entered into reserved forest to cut leaves and in the reserved compartment of No.82 he caused the death of bird namely peafowl (male peacock) and he was carrying the same in a covered cloth which was seized by Forest Ranger T.N.Kumbhaj (PW-5) and others in presence of witnesses Shyamlal (PW-1) and Bir Singh

(PW-2) vide Ex.P-1. A Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-2. Post mortem was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and thereafter the competent officer filed a charge-sheet in the jurisdictional criminal Court for offence under Section 51(1) of the Act, 1972.

(2.2) The applicant abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating that the prosecution case is out and out false and he has been falsely implicated in the case.

(3) In order to bring home the above-stated offence, during the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in support of the prosecution case and exhibited nine documents. Whereas, the defence neither examined any witness nor filed any document in support of its case.

(4) The trial Magistrate, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the applicant guilty for the offence under Section 51 of the Act, 1972 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000.

(5) In an appeal filed by the applicant, the appellate Court maintained the judgment of

conviction as well awarding the sentence against which this revision has been filed.

(6) Shri Ajit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the prosecution has absolutely failed to bring home the offence under Section 51 of the Act, 1972. Alternatively, he would submit that the sentence awarded is excessive looking to the guilt of the applicant and as such the period undergone by the applicant be held sufficient so far as sentence is concerned.

(7) Opposing the submission made on behalf of the applicant, Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/non-applicant would submit that the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below finding the applicant guilty for the offence under Section 51 of the Act, 1972 for killing a national bird peacock, rightly reached to the conclusion that he is guilty for the offence under Section 51 of the Act, 1972. He would further submit that looking to the fact that the applicant has killed a national bird, no leniency should be shown while sentencing the applicant.

(8) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the rival submissions and have also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

(9) The question falls for consideration is whether the applicant is guilty of causing death of a prohibited bird namely peafowl which is a scheduled bird provided in Sl.No.11 of Part III of Schedule I enacted under the provisions of the Act, 1972. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24-3-1998, the applicant was coming from the reserved forest compartment No.82 having the covered cloth and the prohibited bird peacock which was seized by Forest Ranger T.N.Kumbhaj (PW-5) in presence of witnesses Shyamlal (PW-1) and Bir Singh (PW-2) and seized vide Ex.P-1. Shyamlal (PW-1) and Bir Singh (PW-2), in

their statements before the Court have duly supported the prosecution case that on being inquired by the Forest Officers and from the applicant the peacock (dead) was recovered vide Ex.P-1. They were subject to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing has been