The evidence presented must be consistent and reliable to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. D. Dash, J. - The State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udala in 2(b) C.C. Case No.13 of 1991 (Trial Case No.536 of 1991) acquitting the respondents of the charge under section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.03.1991 some villagers of Patsanipur, Ambikadeipur, Dengam entered into the Similipal Sanctuary for poaching wild animals. So, under the leadership of Forest Range Officer, Udala, a party comprising of other forest officials went to Jenabil forest area hill side of the sanctuary and way laid there. It was around 5.30 A.M. they saw a large number of poachers coming down the hill. So, there was a chase from all sides when those poachers rushed inside the dense forest at random. With much difficulty the respondents were only apprehended and they were found to be carrying a freshly cut left fore limb of a wild Bore by means of a bahangi resting on their shoulders. They were arrested at the spot and seizure of the materials carried by them was made along with two bows and four arrows. They were found to have killed a wild Bore from inside the sanctuary area by means of bows and arrows. Report being placed by the forest range officer, the DFO-cum-Wild Life Warden, Baripada lodged the complaint. Thus, the respondents faced the trial.

In the trial the respondents took the plea of complete denial.

3. Prosecution in order to establish their case has examined nine witnesses including the complainant P.W.9. P.W.5 is the Forester whereas P.Ws. 4 and 7 are the Forest Range Officers. The other forest guards who are the members of the raiding party have come to dock as P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8.

4. The trial court on examination of evidence and upon their evaluation has arrived at conclusion that prosecution evidence is not consistent and worthy of credence. Therefore, entertaining a doubt, the trial court refused to accept the prosecution case in fastening the guilt upon the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that there was no reason for the trial court to discard the evidence of the official witnesses, who have no axe to grind against the respondents and when the respondents have been caught red handed at the spot inside the sanctuary area with a freshly cut limb of a wild Bore, they ought to have been convicted for the offence under section 51 of the Act. Thus, he urges that the order of acquittal needs interference.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the finding rendered by the court below. According to him, after a thorough discussion of evidence on record, right conclusion has been arrived at in refusing to accept the prosecution version. According to him, the evidence of prosecution witnesses being not consistent, the trial court has rightly discarded the same as in this case in view of gathering of a large number of persons, the presence of these respondents as simple travelers cannot altogether be ruled out and as also their false implication.

7. Keeping the rival submission in mind, this Court is now called upon to examine the evidence of the prosecution and evaluate the same in judging the defensibility of the finding of the court below on which the order of acquittal is based. But before taking up the said exercise, it is felt apposite to take note of the settled position of law with regard to the powers of this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal in seisin of an appeal at the behest of the State.

It has been held in case of Basappa v. State of Karnataka; (2014) 57 OCR 1044 that the High Court in an appeal under section 378 Cr.P.C. is entitled to reappraise the evidence and put the conclusions drawn by the trial court to test but the same is permissible only if the judgment of the trial court is perverse. Relying the case of Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh; (2009) 10 SCC 639, it has been held that