JUDGMENT :

The petitioner seeks interference by this Court with the order of conviction under sections 9, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the order of sentence of SI for one year for the aforesaid offence, both dated 8th July 2014, passed in T.R No. 236 of 2014 arising out of C/3 Case No. 59 of 2010, as affirmed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2014.

2. C/3 Case No. 59 of 2010 was initiated on the basis of the prosecution report submitted by Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa. The said prosecution report was based on the enquiry conducted on the information received on 11th December 2010 that some persons at Mohadi Protected Forest had hunted a wild animal. In course of trial, 8 witnesses were examined to support the charge for commission of the aforesaid offence by the petitioner and co-accused Gangaram Laguri.

3. The prosecution case is that on the basis of an information received on 11th December 2010 by Rameshwar Bandia who was posted as Forest Guard a search was conducted on 16th December 2010 during which two nails and one teeth of a leopard were seized from the house of the petitioner in presence of three witnesses. The other accused, however, escaped when he saw the raiding team at village Sarbil.

4. The learned trial Judge dealt with the evidences laid before him in the following manner :

“17. Heard the argument advanced on behalf of both the parties and perused the entire case record thoroughly. From perusal of the case record as well as the deposition of the witnesses it appears that PW-1 has stated in para-2 that on search made in the house of accused Gura Purty one piece of skin, one teeth and the nails were recovered from the pocket of the pant. On the basis of disclosure name of accused Ganga Ram Laguri that he was also involved in hunting with him. In para-3 this witness has deposed that, they along with village Munda went to the house of Ganga Ram Laguri and made a raid and had seized skin and three bundles of electric wire. The seized skin was of the leopard. He also stated in para-5 that on the basis of the statement of accused Gura Purty he has made accused to the other persons. PW-2 in para-2 has deposed after search he had gone to place of occurrence and he has putted his signature in the seizure list which is marked as Ext-2 and 3 respectively. But in his cross-examination he has stated that from whose house which article was recovered he doesn't know. PW-3 in para-1 on raid made in the house of accused Gura Purty two nails and one teeth was recovered and seizure list of these articles were prepared, which is marked as Ext-2/1. On the search made in the house of Ganga Ram Laguri skin of the leopard, three bundles of electric wire was recovered and seizure list was prepared which is marked as Ext-3/1. PW-4 in para-3 has deposed that raid was made in the house of accused Gura Purty, on search two teeth and one nail of the leopard was recovered from the pant's pocket, he identified the seizure list which is marked as Ext-2/2. In para-3 he stated that raid was also made in the house of accused Ganga Ram Laguri and skin of leopard and three bundles of electric wire was seized. PW-5 has stated that he has not seen the incident taking place. PW-6 is the hearsay witness in para-2 he has stated that he had heard that search was made in the house of Gura Purty. PW-7 in his cross-examination has deposed in para-3 that he doesn't know whose place raid was made. PW-8 is declared hostile.

In this case, in the prosecution report allegation against accused persons, namely, Gura Purty, Batu Purty, Jaipal Purty, Rajan Hembrom, Kandey Hembrom, Gangaram Laguri, Seregeya Laguri, Sonaram Laguri are leveled for the consume the meat of that wild animal. On the basis of confessional statement made before the forest officials it has been stated by the accused Gura Purty that meat of the animal was sold in the market and it was purchased by the accused persons. But regarding this point none of t