The judgment establishes the reliance on the evidence of experienced and specially trained officers, the presumption of possession under section 57 of the Act, 1972, and the consideration of precedents to determine the appropriate sentence.

Sushil Kumar Palo, J.

The petitioners preferred this revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr. P.C., assailing the judgment dated 27.8.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandla in Criminal Appeal No. 110/1999 whereby the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction and sentence dated 10.9.1997 passed by J.M.F.C. in Criminal Case No. 221/1996 whereby the petitioners were convicted for offence under section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in lieu of fine, they have to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for five months each.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 14.7.1996, Police Station Mohgaon received information that at village Baniyatara, the accused persons Prem Singh and Sonu Gond are in possession of panther trophy and are trying to sell the same for Rs. 7,000/- and are in search of customers. The Police party along with witnesses Asgar Ali and Sukal Singh arrived at Village Bnaiyatara in a hired jeep Bearing No. M.P. 20-H/0607. The Sub-Inspector and the Head Constable were in civil dress. Keeping the jeep at a few distance, they entered into the village and represented them as traders and went into the house of Prem Singh and proposed to purchase the trophy. Accused Prem Singh called co-accused Sonu. Both of them produced the trophy of the panther, four claws and piece of liver, agreed to sell them for Rs. 7,000/-. When a bundle of Rs. 50/- note was shown to them by the Police party, accused Prem Singh took out a polythene bag and accused Sonu took out a polythene bag. Both the bags contained the trophy of panther, four claws, bone, nails and the piece of liver.

3. As per the complaint, the other police party and the panch witnesses entered into the scene and caught the accused persons along with the trophy, claws bone and piece of liver of the panther. Seizure was made by Ex. P/1 and P/2. Map Ex. P/3 was drawn. By preparing arrest memo, the accused persons were taken into custody. Dehati Nalisi Ex. P/6 was drawn. The departure for the spot was written in Ex. P/6 (Rojnamcha Sanha) and after returning from the spot, Ex. P/7 Rojnamcha sanha was lodged. Crime No. 69/96 was registered under sections 9, 15, 16, 39 and 51 of the "Act, 1972". The seized property and trophy was sent to the Director, Kanha Tiger Reserve for examination. The report Ex. P/7 has been received confirming the trophy, claws of wild life "Tendua" (panther).

4. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

5. The accused persons abjured guilt. In their examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied the possession and contended that they have falsely been implicated, due to enmity by the opposite group of sarpanch as they are supporters of the preset sarpanch.

6. Learned Trial Court after having adduced evidence, found the petitioners guilty for offence under section 39 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and convicted them under section 51(1) of the Act, 1972 and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of fine, they have to undergo additional sentence of five months rigorous imprisonment.

7. The petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 110/1997. Learned Sessions Judge, Mandla vide judgment dated 27.8.1999 affirmed the judgment passed by the J.M.F.C., Mandla maintaining the conviction and sentence.

8. The petitioners contended that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution story. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly. The petitioners are not directly involved in the crime. The petitioners claimed that the investigation agency has not recorded memorandum of the petitioners. Therefore, prima facie no case is made out against them.

9. Per contra, learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposing the contentions claimed that the learned Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record and the charges ha