##PAGE1##

1

NAFR D si i g g n it e a d l l b y y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

PRAKASH PRAKASH KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2026.03.30

11:18:21 +0530 CRR No. 543 of 2016

Judgment Reserved on :17/03/2026 Judgment Delivered on :30/03/2026

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Shivanarayan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Pasal, P.S. Bhaiyathan, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh,

--- Applicant versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, --- Respondent

AND

CRR No. 589 of 2016

1 -Sunil Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Pasal P.S. Bhaiyathan District – Surajpur, Chhattisgarh,

2 - Ramchandra Khairwar S/o Late Dev Sharan Khairwar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Bhanwarkhoh P.S. - Oodgi District – Surajpur,

Chhattisgarh, ---Applicants

Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through In Charge of Police Station - Surajpur, District

- Surajpur Chhattisgarh, --- Respondent

2

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal,

CAV Judgment

1. The above captioned revisions arise out of same judgment dated

06.06.2016, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of

by this common judgment.

2. The present applicants have preferred these criminal revisions under

Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against the impugned order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Appeal No.14/2015, arising out of judgment dated 30.09.2015, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District – Surajpur, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Case No.308/2014 wherein the accused-applicants have been convicted under Sections 51(1-A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (in short ‘the Act of 1972’) and sentenced for R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months each. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused-

applicants. Hence, these revisions.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.01.2014, upon receiving

information from the Crime Branch, Surajpur the investigating officer prepared informant Panchnama (Ex.P-1). Acting upon the said information, he informed the forest department and the accused- applicants who were going on a motorcycle were stopped and on being searched they were found in possession of the trophy of endangered scheduled animal i.e. leopard (panthera pardus) to sell the same. The skin and other items were seized from the accused

3

persons in accordance with seizure report. Upon returning to the police station, a case was registered against the accused persons under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and, thereafter, further investigation proceedings were initiated. Statements of the witnesses were

recorded.

4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against

the applicants, who abjured their charge and pleaded non-guilty.

5. Learned CJM and the Appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in the opening paragraphs of this judgment. Hence, these

revisions.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants in both the revisions,

jointly submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. They further submit that the two independent witnesses, namely, Nazir Hussain (PW-01) and Md. Syed (PW-02) have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. Further, the alleged seized articles were not kept in safe custody and there is no sample seal affixed in the seizure memo (Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3). This apart, there is no copy of malkhana register av