IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must provide clear evidence of the location and nature of the alleged offenses under the Wild Life (Protection) Act to secure a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:

(i) Judgment and order dated 08.09.2015, passed in Criminal Case No. 141 of 2014, Deputy Regional Forest Officer, Kalagarh Corbet Tiger Reserve, Ramnagar vs. Taseen, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 2(16), 2(35), 9, 27, 38(v), 35(8) and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (“the Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for further period of three months.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 08.08.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 2015, Taseen v. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital. By it, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order passed in the case affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the prosecution case, on 18.12.2013, forest officials were on patrolling duty in Dhela Bhabhar Forest Block, Pathurwa Western Beat, Compartment No. 18. At about 06:00 in the evening, they spotted the revisionist. He was questioned. He revealed that he has come to the forest on an invitation of one Umar, so as to kill tigers. Forest officials prepared the report and finally a complaint was filed against the revisionist on 15.02.2014, which is basis of the case. Evidence under Section 244 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) was recorded and, thereafter, on 17.02.2014, charge under Sections 2(16), 2(35), 9, 27, 38(v), 35(8) r/w Section 51 of the Act was framed against him, to which, he denied and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in all six witnesses namely, PW1 Govind Singh Dangi, the person who arrested the applicant, PW2 Mukesh Singh, PW3 Jagat Singh Bisht and PW4 Rakesh Kumar Bhatt who were accompanying PW1 Govind Singh Dangi, on the date of incident, PW5 K.S. Rawat, who prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of the witnesses and PW6 Sanjay Kumar Pandey, he also stated about some call detail record. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code. According to him, he has been falsely implicated.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that no offence is made out; the revisionist was allegedly arrested with a patal. It is argued that it does not make out any offence.

6. Learned State counsel would submit that PW1 Govind Singh Dangi, PW2 Mukesh Singh, PW3 Jagat Singh Bisht and PW4 Rakesh Kumar Bhatt have recovered a patal from the revisionist and PW5 K.S. Rawat has stated that the place of incident was within the Sanctuary.

7. PW1 Govind Singh Dangi has stated that on the date of incident, they spotted the applicant and recovered a patal from him; he revealed that he has visited the forest area on an invitation to kill tigers. The revisionist revealed that he belongs to a gang which is involved in killing of two tigers in Amangarh Range. This witness has proved various documents. PW2 Mukesh Singh, Forest Guard, PW3 Jagat Singh Bisht of Dhaila Range and PW4 Rakesh Kumar Bhatt have also corroborated the statements of PW1 Govind Singh Dangi is in their examination-in-chief. PW5 K.S. Rawat prepared site plan and recorded statements of various witnesses. According to him, the place of incident is a declared Tiger Reserve and it is so recorded in the Notification as Page No. 2, Serial No. 3 as Buffer Zone, Dhaila Bhabhar 1-6, which this witness proved as Ext.A17.

8. PW6 Sanjay Kumar Pandey has stated about some call detail records.

9. The revisionist is charged for the offences punishable under Section 2 Sub Section 16 of the Act. This Section defines hunting. The definition clause cannot be related to any penalty clause.

10. The revisionist has also been charged for the offences punish