Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Tumba Oraon – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 804 of 2004
Decided On : 29-08-2022
Wildlife Protection Act - Conviction under Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 - Section 11 (2) (3) and Section 57 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 - The court discussed the burden of proof on the accused to prove the right to private defense and the duty of every person to seek aid from the State before exercising private defense. The court also considered the nature and ferocity of the animal in determining the right to private defense.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted for killing a leopard that had attacked a villager. They claimed to have acted in private defense, but the trial court and appellate court held that they did not plead the right to private defense and denied the allegation during the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' claim of private defense was genuine based on the nature of the attack by the leopard and the duty of every person to seek aid from the State before exercising private defense.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners acted in private defense when they killed the leopard that had attacked a villager.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof is on the accused to prove the right to private defense and that there is a duty on every person to seek aid from the State before exercising private defense. The nature and ferocity of the animal are relevant in determining the right to private defense.
Final Decision: The judgment of the appellate court and the trial court were quashed and set aside, and the petitioners were discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. As per the service report received, petitioner No. 3-Bandhanu Oraon has died, as such, the instant application is dismissed as abated against petitioner No. 3.
3. The instant criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 07.06.2004, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 1999, preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.1999, in C.I. Case No. 63 of 1993, corresponding to T.R. No. 138 of 1999, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, whereby the petitioners were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, has been affirmed.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that on secret information, Forest Range Officer had reported that on 17.08.1993 afternoon, one astray Leopard entered in village at Atakora, P.S. Bharno, Gumla. As a matter of fact, this Leopard entered into the land (Bari) of Chandan Oraon and climbed upon Machan. It has been further alleged that several villagers assembled with lathi garasa, baluwa etc. and tried to oust the Leopard by throwing bricks but in the meantime the Leopard jumped from Machan and attacked Chirho Oraon and injured him. Thus, all the villagers attacked the Leopard as result of which Leopard died. The size of killed Leopard was 6’ 6” in length and 2’ 4” in height.
When the case was filed, petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, the petitioners were found guilty for the offences and they were convicted and their appeal was also rejected by the learned appellate court.
5. Mr. A.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned judgments on the ground that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court have not considered Section 11 (2) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Learned counsel further contended that though both the trial court as well as appellate court have considered this submission of the petitioners about right to private defense but erroneously held that the burden lies on the persons who plead it and since an opportunity was given to the petitioners under Section 313 Cr. P.C. but they have denied the allegation simply but not raised this ground. This finding of the trial court as well as appellate court is perverse in nature, inasmuch as, the main prosecution case itself transpires that the Leopard entered in the Bari (field) of Chandan Oraon and all the villagers assembled there and tried to oust the Leopard by throwing bricks but in the meantime the Leopard jumped from machan and attacked Chirho Oraon and injured him. This particular fact in the prosecution case itself shows that the petitioners have used as private defence by killing the Leopard.
He further submits that the size of the killed leopard was six feet and six inches in length and two feet and four inches in height, being a very dangerous animal therefore, merely holding that the petitioners did not plead the right of private defense is not correct. Even the confessional statement of Birsa Oraon wherein it has been stated that Birsa Oraon along with surviving petitioners killed the Leopard but on the other hand every part of the story has not been considered by the learned trial court as such the conviction of the petitioners may be set aside.
6. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer of acquittal and submits that petitioners would have informed the Authorities or they should have encircled the Leopard by any means but killing of Leopard is not justified as per the provision of law. She further contended that leopard being animal which is now been found very rare, as such kil
The burden of proof on the accused to prove the right to private defense and the duty of every person to seek aid from the State before exercising private defense.
(1) Right of private defence – Instinct of self-preservation is embedded in DNA of every person – Doctrine of right to private defence is founded on very same instinct of self-preservation that has b....
The right to private defense under IPC Sections 96-102 allows an individual to use reasonable force to protect oneself from imminent harm, and the assessment of such defense must consider the subject....
To establish a case under Section 34 of I.P.C. prosecution has to prove prior meeting of minds which may be determined from the conduct of the offenders unfolding itself during the course of action a....
The court established that the accused acted in self-defense against an unlawful assembly, leading to their acquittal despite initial convictions.
The nature and gravity of the offences are relevant considerations in determining bail entitlement, and the right of private defence is not available for punishing a wrongdoer.
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
