Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
Salman Khan – Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.905 of 2007, S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.149/2013
Decided on : 25-07-2016
The court acquitted the accused of hunting a black buck under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The court held that the statement of the eyewitness could not be read against the accused as he did not make himself available for cross-examination by the accused's counsel. The court also found that the circumstantial evidence collected was inadequate and weak, and that the recovery of blood stains and tire molds was suspicious. The court further held that the pellets recovered from the gypsy did not match with the ones recovered from either the room of the accused or another co-accused, and that the recovered pellets were only used for hunting small animals. The court concluded that it would be unsafe to rely on such evidence and acquitted the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with hunting a black buck under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The prosecution's case rested on the statement of an eyewitness, who was declared hostile by the prosecution and did not make himself available for cross-examination by the accused's counsel. The prosecution also produced circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of blood stains and tire molds from the scene of the alleged crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the statement of the eyewitness could not be read against the accused as he did not make himself available for cross-examination by the accused's counsel. The court also found that the circumstantial evidence collected was inadequate and weak, and that the recovery of blood stains and tire molds was suspicious. The court further held that the pellets recovered from the gypsy did not match with the ones recovered from either the room of the accused or another co-accused, and that the recovered pellets were only used for hunting small animals. The court concluded that it would be unsafe to rely on such evidence and acquitted the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the statement of the eyewitness could be read against the accused? 2. Whether the circumstantial evidence collected was sufficient to convict the accused? 3. Whether the pellets recovered from the gypsy matched with the ones recovered from either the room of the accused or another co-accused?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The statement of the eyewitness could not be read against the accused as he did not make himself available for cross-examination by the accused's counsel. 2. The circumstantial evidence collected was inadequate and weak, and the recovery of blood stains and tire molds was suspicious. 3. The pellets recovered from the gypsy did not match with the ones recovered from either the room of the accused or another co-accused, and the recovered pellets were only used for hunting small animals.
Final Decision: The accused was acquitted of the charges against him.
1. The criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is preferred by petitioner-Salman Khan against the judgment dated 24.08.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.50/2006, whereby, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 10.04.2006 in Criminal Case No.206/1999 was affirmed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act to undergo 5 years' simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.
2. The State has filed appeal under Section 378(iii) & (i) of the Cr.P.C. against the same judgment dated 24.08.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.72/2006, vide which, he has set aside the judgment dated 10.04.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicting and sentencing the respondent-Gordhan Singh for offence under Section 51 read with Section 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act in Criminal Case No.206/1999 and thereby acquitting Gordhan Singh of the alleged offence.
3. At the first instance, it is necessary to look into the circumstances which led to the registration of the FIR in the present case. On 02.10.1998, an FIR No.93(26) of 1998 came to be registered with the Forest Department, Jodhpur for the incident of hunting of a black buck, which had taken place on intervening night of 01.10.1998 and 02.10.1998. During the investigation of this FIR, one Harish Dulani informed the Forest Department that deers were also hunted down by some persons just a few days ago on 26.09.1998 and 28.09.1998. On the basis of the said information, Lalit Kumar Bora (PW-34), the then Wild Life Conservator, Jodhpur sent a written complaint to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur bringing to the notice that as per the statement of Harish Dulani recorded on 02.10.1998, Salman Khan along with others had indulged in illegal hunting of deers on 26.09.1998 and on 28.09.1998 in the vicinity of village Mathania about 7 kilometers away from Ghoda Farm. On the basis of the said complaint sent by Lalit Kumar Bora (PW-34), two more FIRs came to be registered: (i) FIR No.162/1998 dated 11.10.1998 at P.S. Mathania, Jodhpur for hunting of a deer on 26.09.1998 (Criminal Case No.207/1999) and (ii) 163/1998 dated 11.10.1998 at P.S. Mathania, Jodhpur for killing another deer on 28.09.1998 (Criminal Case No.206/1999). For the incident of hunting which took place on 26.09.1998 and pertains to FIR No.162/1998, Salman Khan was convicted for the offence under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act to undergo one year's simple imprisonment. He preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, which was transferred to the High Court and was heard by this Court as S.B.Criminal Appeal No.53/2012. By a separate order and judgment of even date, the said appeal of Salman Khan stands allowed and he is acquitted of the offence.
4. In the second case i.e. Criminal Case No.206/1999 which pertains to FIR No.163/1998, Salman Khan was convicted for five years for the alleged hunting on 28.09.1998. The appeal preferred against the said conviction, too, has been dismissed by the Sessions Court vide judgment dated 24.08.2007. The present revision petition is against the said order of conviction and dismissal of the appeal by the Sessions Court. It would not be out of place to mention that the trial of the third case i.e. Criminal Case No.66/2011 which pertains to FIR No.93(26) of 1998 registered with the Forest Department on 02.10.1998 for hunting on intervening night of 01.10.1998 and 02.10.1998 is still pending.
5. Along with the written complaint sent by Lalit Kumar Bora (PW-34), a copy of
AI
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
