IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. ANIL KUMAR, J.
BABU S/O MARCHOSE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 2529 of 2003
Decided On : 28-10-2020
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Sections 9, 29, 31, 40(2), 49-B(ia), 51, 26-A(b), 25-B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313(1)(b) - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 74, 65, 57, 78 - Madras Forest Act (Act V of 1882 ) - Section 16 - Reserve forest - Elephant tusk was removed - Elephant was killed by gun shot - Tusk of elephant was removed and elephant was killed by gun shot on its head - Confession statement itself is not an evidence unless it is corroborated by other material evidence.
Findings of the Court:
It was duty of prosecution to prove that act complained of was done within reserve forest in accordance with notification under Section 19 of Act - Notification is to be proved either by production of Gazette or by a certified copy of notification before court - In this case, original of Ext.P16 notification is not produced before trial court - Certified copy is also not produced - Validity of notification discussed in above cited judicial precedents is equally applicable in this case - Corresponding provisions are provided under Wild Life Act in paramateria with Forest Act - Principles discussed and decided under Section 19 of Forest Act are equally applicable for offences under Wild Life (Protection) Act as well - Revision petitioners/accused 1 and 4 are found not guilty of offences under Sections 9, 29, 31 and 40(2) read with Section 51 of Act and they are acquitted thereunder.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.05.2003 in Crl. Appeal Nos. 47/2000, 44/2000 and connected cases on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Kalpetta, confirming the conviction and sentence rendered in C.C No. 671/1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sultan Bethery. The revision petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 4 in C.C. No. 671/1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sultan Bethery and the 1st appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 47/2000 and the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 44/2000 respectively on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Kalpetta. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 9, 29, 31, 40(2) and 49-B(ia) read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The prosecution case in brief is hereunder:
On 06.07.1995, while the forest guards, Kurichiat Section were engaged in patrol duty in and around the reserved forest, they had located carcass of a wild elephant at Dhodakulasi in Kurichiat reserve forest in Wynad Wild Life Sanctuary. They had noticed that the tusk of the elephant was removed and the elephant was killed by gun shot on its head. Immediately the forest officials informed the occurrence to the Assistant Wild Life Warden, Kurichiat who registered Form-I report as O.R. 9/95. On the next day, the Assistant Wild Life Warden inspected the place and made a request to the Veterinary Surgeon for conducting postmortem examination. The investigation in this case revealed that the accused 1 to 5 had hunted the elephant on 1.7.1995 and removed the tusks. During investigation, it was further disclosed that the accused had hunted a wild elephant on 30.6.1995 from Karnataka Forest. The tusk of the said elephant was also collected by the accused. It is further alleged that the accused 1 to 5 reached the house of the 2nd accused and the 6th accused came in his autorikshaw bearing Registration No. K.L. 10B/4029 and assisted the other accused to remove the tusks to the house of the 3rd accused. The 3rd accused contacted the 7th accused at Trivandrum. The 7th accused purchased the tusks for consideration of Rs. 22,500/- and took tusks to Thiruvananthapuram. The tusks were seized from the house of the 7th accused. The 7th accused was further found in possession of trophies made in ivory and they were also seized.
3. The crime was registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 9, 29, 31, 40(2) and 49-B(ia) read with Section 51 of the Act.
4. During the trial of the case, PWs. 1 to 10 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P20 and MOs.1 to 24 on prosecution side. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused 1 and 4 and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
6. Coming to the evidence let in this case PWs. 1 and 2 adduced evidence to show that on 06.07.1995 they were conducting patrol duty within the reserved forest in Kurichiat Section. According to them, while so, they found the carcass of a wild animal at Dhodakulasi. According to them, an elephant was shot dead on its head and its tusks were removed. The carcass was of 5 days old and it was that of a male elephant. Accordingly, PW-1 prepared Ext.P1 mahazar and returned to the forest office. On the next day, the occurrence was informed to PW-2, the Assistant Wild Life Warden. Consequently, PW-2 registered Ext.P7 Form-I report as O.R. 9/95. PWs. 1, 2 and 4 again proceeded to the spot along with PW-3, a Veterinary Surgeon. Ext.P2 mahazar was prepared on 07.07.1995. PW-3 conducted postmortem examination on carcass and issued Ext.P8 postmortem certificate. According to PW-3, the carcass was that of a male elephant aged 10 years. The head was broken.
7. During
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.