IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove unauthorized entry and destruction of wildlife habitat beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under the Wildlife (Protection) Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Mitali Thakuria, J.)

Heard Mr. S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel assisted by Mr. N. Z. Lotha, learned counsel for the appellants for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Wildlife for the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, Wildlife, Karbi Anglong in Special Wildlife (Protection) Case No. 01/2023, arising out of C.R. Case No. 934/2017, whereby the appellants were held guilty for the offence under Section 29 of the Wildlife Act, 1972 punishable under Section 51(1) of the said Act, and the appellants were sentenced to a simple imprisonment of 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only each and in default simple imprisonment for another 1 (one) month with the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.05.2017, at about 6.30 a.m., a secret information was received by one Shri Sundorsing Teron, Forest Beat Officer, Lahorijan Beat Karbi Anglong (West) Division regarding illegal entry of some persons into Doldoli Reserve Forest and destruction and denudation of wildlife habitat. On the basis of the said information, a patrolling team of the Forest Department, led by Shri Longki Killing, FR-I, proceeded towards FD pillar Nos. 5 & 6 and after reaching the said place, at about 7.30 a.m., they saw 5 (five) persons, who were illegally cutting & clearing the jungle without even having permit to enter into the Reserve Forest. On being interrogation, they disclosed their names as (i) Lipamungo Odyuo, (ii) Orenthung Jami, (iii) Mhonjan Odyuo, (iv) Jonthungo Odyuo, & (v) Stebhem @ Stephen Murry, the accused/appellants herein, and from their possession, the forest team seized a Dao, Deer leg and horn of wild buffalo, which were accordingly seized by preparing seizure list and the accused persons were also arrested.

4. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, an offence report, along with remand application, was submitted by the Forest Beat Officer and on the basis of the same, the learned Magistrate/Deputy Commissioiner, Karbi Anglong registered a case, being C.R. Case No. 934/2017, and send the accused/appellants to judicial custody and subsequently committed the case to the Court of learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. The learned Sessions Judge, accordingly, after considering the materials available on record and also finding prima facie case, framed charge against the present accused/appellants under Section 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in contravention of Section 29 of Wild Life (Protection), Act.

5. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) numbers of witnesses. However, the defence did not adduce any evidence in support of their case. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, vide impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2023, in Special Wildlife (Protection) Case No. 01/2023, held guilty for the offence under Section 29 of the Wildlife Act, 1972 and convicted the accused/appellants under Section 51(1) of the said Act, and sentenced them to a simple imprisonment of 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only each and in default simple imprisonment for another 1 (one) month with the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

6. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, Wildlife, Karbi Anglong in Special Wildlife (Protection) Case No. 01/2023, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellants.

7. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that all the appellants are innocent and honest people and they belong to Nagaland. The appellants have gone to the plot of land belonging to appellant No. 5- Stebhem @ Stephen