Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Arun - Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Jail Revision No.2 of 2023
Decided On : 19-03-2024
Wildlife - Conviction - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Sections 9, 39, 51 - The court upheld the conviction under Section 51 but modified the sentence from seven years to four years, emphasizing the need for proportionality in sentencing and the absence of prejudice from charge framing errors.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist was convicted under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for possessing live turtles and a Monitor Lizard. He was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which he challenged on grounds of excessive sentencing and improper charge framing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge was framed lawfully and that no prejudice was caused to the revisionist. However, it deemed the seven-year sentence excessive and modified it to four years, while maintaining the fine.
Issues: Whether the charge was framed lawfully and if the sentence imposed was excessive given the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that errors in charge do not invalidate a conviction unless they cause prejudice. It also emphasized that sentencing should be proportionate to the offense and the offender's circumstances.
Result: The revision is partly allowed; the sentence is modified to four years rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:-
(ii) Judgment and order dated 17.02.2023, passed in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 109 of 2022, Arun Vs. Forest Department by the court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar (“the appeal”). By it, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order passed in the case has been upheld.
2. The case is based on a complaint filed by the Khushal Singh Rawat, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Haridwar Division. According to the complaint, on 18.04.2020, at 5:30 PM, when the forest officials were on patrolling duty, they spotted two persons having bags on their hands. One of them was the revisionist. From his possession, according to the prosecution case, two live turtles and one live Monitor Lizard were recovered. They were arrested. The matter was inquired, thereafter, complaint was filed. The court took cognizance.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, PW1 Gaurav Singh and PW2 Rakesh Kumar.
4. Charge under Sections 9, 39, 51 of the Act was framed against the revisionist. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). The revisionist denied the allegations and claimed that he has been falsely implicated.
5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 05.07.2023, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved by it. Revisionist preferred the appeal which has been dismissed. Hence, the revision.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist raised two points. He would submit that alongwith the revisionist co-accused Lalit was also arrested but he was sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment only. It is argued that the revisionist has been sentenced under Section 51 of the Act for seven years rigorous imprisonment on the ground that it was a subsequent offence. Learned counsel would submit that the charge for subsequent offence has not been framed lawfully; and the sentence is excessive. It is argued that even for successive offence, the maximum sentence is seven years, which has been imposed in the case. It should have been little less than seven years. Seven years imprisonment should have been imposed in extreme cases.
8. Learned State Counsel would submit that it is a finding of fact recorded by two courts below.
9. In the case, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code on 12.05.2022. The judgment was delivered on 05.07.2022. Record reveals that on 05.07.2022, additional charge with regard to previous conviction was framed on the revisionist. It records that “earlier in Criminal Case No.1153 of 2007, State vs. Arun, under Section 9, 39, 51 of the Act, Police Station Pathri District Haridwar, the revisionist was convicted under Section 51 of the Act and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.12,000/-with further stipulation that in default of payment of fine the revisionist shall undergo 15 days additional simple imprisonment”. Revisionist was then convicted on 19.07.2019, which was affirmed in appeal on 07.12.2020. The charge also specifies that as per allegation, on 05.12.2016, the revisionist was arrested having five turtles in his possession. Charge records that it was read over to the revisionist to which he admitted his conviction.
10
The court established that procedural errors in charge framing do not invalidate convictions unless they cause prejudice, and emphasized proportionality in sentencing.
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.
The court affirmed the authority to alter charges under Section 216, ensuring no prejudice to the accused while maintaining the integrity of the trial process.
Courts cannot impose sentences below the statutory minimum mandated by law, ensuring adherence to legislative intent in wildlife protection.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction limits intervention in Trial Court decisions unless there is a clear error or injustice, especially regarding the framing of charges under the Criminal Proced....
The court ruled that at the charge framing stage, strong suspicion suffices to proceed against the accused, prioritizing witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence over the need for conclusive p....
The scope and ambit of Sections 227, 228, 397 and 482 Cr.P.C. and the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under these provisions, particularly in the context of discharge of accused and....
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
