The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concrete evidence and forensic examination to support convictions under the Wild Life (Protection) Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 29.08.2007, passed in Criminal Case No.405 of 2006, State vs. Shyam Singh, by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar (for short, “the case”). By which the revisionist has been sentenced under Sections 9/50/51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and;

(ii) The judgment and order dated 09.04.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2007, Shyam Singh vs. State, by the court of Sessions Judge, Bageshwar (for short, “the appeal”). By which the order dated 29-08-2007, passed in the case has been confirmed.

2. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated as follows. PW1 Kamla Devi gave a report on 05.04.2004 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate alleging therein that the dog of the revisionist was killed by a leopard. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist poisoned the corpus of the dog, the leopard consumed it and died. Thereafter, the revisionist removed the skin of the leopard and kept it in his house. Based on the report, according to the prosecution, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kapkot directed departmental officer to look into the matter. Thereafter, a raid was conducted on 07.04.2004 by the forest and police officers. The informant indicated the place where the skin was kept by the revisionist. It was on a tree which was at about 20 meter from the residence of the revisionist. The remains of the leopard was also recovered from a place. Thereafter, Forester, Narayan Singh Bisht gave a report to the Revenue Police Officer to lodge a report. This report is Ex.A-4. Based on it, Chik FIR Ex.A-6 was lodged under Sections 9/50/51 of the Act. Postmortem of the skin was done by PW7 Dr. R.P. Singh. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan Ex.A-7 and submitted the charge-sheet.

3. On 14.09.2004, charge under Section 9/50/51 of the Act was framed against the revisionist. He denied the charge and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses namely, PW1 PW1 Kamla Devi, PW2 Darban Singh Koranga, PW3 Manohar Ram Vishwakarma, PW4 Narayan Singh Bisht, PW5 Guman Singh, PW6 Dhan Singh Kapkoti, PW7 Dr. R.P. Singh and PW8 Bal Kishan, Patwari. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code. According to him, he has not committed any offence. After hearing the parties, by the judgment passed, in the case, the revisionist has been sentenced, which was upheld in the appeal. Hence, the revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that it is a case of no evidence; the FIR is delayed; nothing was recovered from the possession of the revisionist; the alleged recovery of skin from an open place, as stated, was done at the instance of the witnesses; it is categorical case of the prosecution that the revisionist poisoned the corpus of his dog, so that the leopard may consumed it and die. It is argued that there has been no forensic examination, which may confirm that any poison was found in the remains of the leopard and in the skin. Hence, it is argued that the finding recorded is based on no evidence. Therefore, in the revision interference is warranted.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also referred the statement of the prosecution witnesses.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the FIR is not delayed; the skin of the leopard was found at a distance of 20 meter from the residence of the revisionist; the remains of the leopard was found at the instance of the revisionist.

8. It is a revision. Appreciate of evidence is not a routine in such matters. This scope is much restricted to the extent of examining correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment and order. In case, the finding is based on no evidence or material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered, in such eventuality, the Court may well with its jur