Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1156
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Hemraj S/o Madna - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2100/2018
Decided On : 27-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Harshit Yadav
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit , Dy.G.A.
Actions taken in self-defence to protect human life do not constitute hunting under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, if there is no intent to harm the animal.
Headnote:
(A) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Sections 9, 11(2), and 51 - Quashing of FIR for alleged hunting of a wild panther - Accused acted in self-defence to protect human life from imminent threat - No evidence of intent to hunt or harm the animal - Actions deemed necessary and justified under the Act. (Paras 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16)
(B) Criminal Law - Principle of mens rea - Absence of criminal intent negates liability under penal provisions - Liability cannot arise from actions taken in self-defence without wrongful intent. (Paras 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 89-2/2018 for offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, following an incident where a wild panther attacked a villager, leading to villagers injuring the panther in self-defence.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the actions of the accused justified under the self-defence provisions of the Act, and thus quashed the FIR.
Issues: The main issues included whether the actions of the accused constituted hunting and whether they acted in self-defence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the accused's actions were defensive in nature, aimed at protecting human life, and did not amount to hunting as defined under the Act.
Result: FIR No. 89-2/2018 quashed.
Order :
1. By way of filing this instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 89-2/2018, registered at the office of the Zonal Forest Officer, Asind, District Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 9 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, along with all further proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are that on 21.04.2018, one Jamunadas Vaishnav, resident of Bharlia, Tehsil Hurda, District Bhilwara, was attacked by a wild panther in Village Sabdada, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara, while he was out for morning ablutions. Upon hearing his cries, the villagers gathered, and the panther took refuge in a nearby ruin. Despite instructions from the officials of the Forest and Police Departments to maintain distance, certain individuals assaulted the panther with sticks, causing injuries. The injured panther was subsequently captured by the forest staff and provided primary treatment before being transported to Nahargarh Biological Park, Jaipur, under the directions of higher authorities. A video of the incident was circulated on social media and published in newspapers, leading to the registration of FIR No. 89/02 dated 22.04.2018 at Forest Guard Post, Asind, under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Pursuant thereto, six accused persons were arrested on 27.04.2018 and produced before the learned Magistrate, who remanded them to judicial custody. Thereafter, the accused moved S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 4385/2018 before this Court, which granted them bail on 07.05.2018. Subsequently, the accused filed S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2100/2018 before this Court, challenging the FIR and seeking a stay on further proceedings, whereupon this Court directed a halt on further action. The matter remains pending before this Court, and the proceedings in Case No. 89-02/2018 before the learned MJM, Asind, shall abide by the outcome of the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.
4. Upon a careful perusal of the facts and legal provisions governing the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the statutory framework under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
5. Section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, states-
”Prohibition of hunting.-No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, III and IV except as provided under section 11 and section 12.”
6. Section 51 prescribes penalties for contraventions of the Act, stipulating imprisonment which may extend to three years, or a fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees, or both.
7. Section 2(16) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, defines “hunting” as including—
(a) killing or poisoning of any wild animal or captive animal and every attempt to do so;
(b) capturing, coursing, snaring, trapping, driving, or baiting any wild or captive animal and every attempt to do so; (c) injuring, destroying, or taking any part of the body of such an animal or, in the case of wild birds or reptiles, damaging the eggs of such birds or reptiles, or disturbing the eggs or nests of such birds or reptiles.
8. In the present case, the alleged act does not fall strictly within the ambit of "hunting" as defined under the Act, as there is no evidence to suggest a deliberate intent to hunt, capture, or kill the wild animal. For an act to qualify as "hunting," there must be clear preparation, intent, and an effort to trace and kill the animal. In the present case, the wild panther had entered a human settlement, creating a state of fear among the villagers. The actions of the accused were aimed at ensuring their safety and curbing any potential assault by the animal, rather than an act of hunting per se. The process of driving away a wild animal to prevent harm to human life does not amount to hunting within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Act.
9. Furthermore, Section 11(2) of the Wild
