2016 Supreme(Raj) 867

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
Salman Khan and Anr. - Salman Khan
Versus
State of Rajasthan – State
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 905 of 2007 and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 2013
Decided on : 25-07-2016

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 - Sections 378 , 397 , 401 , 344 , 161 , 311 , 350 and 164 – Indian penal Code , 1860 - Sections 143, 144, 148 , 201 , 149 and 147 - Wild Life Act - Sections 51 , 52 , 9 and 39 - Evidence Act - Sections 33 , 27 , 24 , 25 and 26 - Arms Act - Section 27 – Hunting - FIR – Imprisonment - At first instance, it is necessary to look into circumstances which led to registration of FIR in present, an FIR came to be registered with Forest Department, for incident of hunting of a black buck, which had taken place on intervening night - During investigation of this FIR, one informed Forest Department that dears were also hunted down by some persons just a few days ago - On basis of said information, then Wild Life Conservator, sent a written complaint to Additional Superintendent of Police, bringing to notice that as per statement of recorded along with others had indulged in illegal hunting of deers in vicinity of village about 7 kilometers away from Ghoda Farm - On basis of said complaint sent by two more FIRs came to be registered FIR for hunting of a deer for killing another deer - For incident of hunting which took place and pertains to FIR was convicted for offence to undergo one years simple imprisonment - He preferred an appeal before Sessions Judge, which was transferred to High Court and was heard by this Court as S.B. Criminal Appeal - By a separate order and judgment of even date, said appeal stands allowed and he is acquitted of tire offence – Held , Learned counsel for prosecution that petitioner involved in this case was involved in another case or two and therefore, he is sure to be involved cannot be taken note of by this Court - In this case, as indeed an accused in every case can be held guilty only by cogent admissible evidence which points to his guilt or innocence - Background and antecedents are not a relevant factor and se facts assume significance only after finding of guilt is arrived at on basis of evidence and that too only when length of sentence has to be determined - In detailed discussions above, this Court has already held that statement of eyewitness cannot be read against petitioner. He did not make himself available to cross-examine by counsel of Salman Khan. findings recorded by trial Court was not examined by counsel of petitioner in spite of being present is not only pervert as held above but contrary to record - Proceedings were initiated against for making false statement - Circumstantial evidence collected is both inadequate and weak - Recovery of blood stains and tyre moulds which is surrounded with suspicion was collected after 12 days of incident from place which is frequented by or vehicles and known for being used by military vehicles can hardly be called an incriminating circumstance - In absence of any recovery of carcass, absence of postmortem and absence of medical evidence as to cause of death, re is no proof with respect to kind of weapon, if any, used for killing, whether it was killed by a weapon at all or simply hunted and killed by some or carnivorous animal - Besides, as in earlier Appeal decided by this Court, in present case also, evidence collected is highly doubtful and suspicious - No pellets were found when gypsy was searched but they were suddenly found - No weapons were found when room was searched but surprisingly were recovered from same room while lying around openly - Pellets recovered from gypsy do not match with ones recovered from either room, and in any case, recovered pellets are used only for hunting small animals like a rabbit or a bird - Under these circumstances, it would be highly unsafe to place reliance on such kind of evidence which is surrounded with suspicion and doubt - Even prosecution has admitted that they were not able to establish weapon used for alleged hunting, leading to acquittal of petitioner – Appeal dismissed