Back
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
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
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.
Criminal proceedings cannot commence without a valid complaint as required by Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, rendering any prosecution based solely on a FIR legally unsustainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the classification of the offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act as non-bailable based on the location and nature of the alleged offence.
Point of Law : If something of the nature included under the term “hunting” has been done by a person without mens rea, the punishment cannot be imposed under Section 51 of the Act.
Killed a wild animal with gun - FIR Quashed - When FIR does not disclose any offence against petitioner, FIR, qua petitioner, is required to be quashed.
The court ruled that a second FIR is permissible if it pertains to different incidents, emphasizing the need for wildlife protection under the law.
Hunting of Rabbit – To attract violation of Section 9 of WL Act, it must be shown that a wild animal specified and detailed in schedules I, II, III and IV has been hunted.
Forest officials lack jurisdiction to investigate IPC offences; investigations must be conducted by police under the law.
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
