GAHC010123602014 2025:GAU-AS:14378

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Crl.A./108/2014

BIJOY ROY and ANR.

S/O LT. MAHESWAR ROY, R/O VILL.NO.2 BOWLAJAR, P.S BIJNI, DIST.

CHIRANG

2: MR. MAJEN BASUMATARY S/O SRI JATIN BASUMATARY

R/O VILL. NO.2 DOWA CHAURANG

P.S. BIJNI

DIST. CHIRANG

VERSUS

STATE OF ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S BHUYAN, MRA KUNDU

Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

ORDER

22.10.2025 Date :

Heard Mr. A. Kundu, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor, Wildlife, appearing for the State Respondent.

2. The present appeal has been instituted assailing the Judgment dated 05.12.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon, in Sessions Case No.91(B)/11, convicting the appellant, herein, under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3(three) years along with payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) each in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 6(six) months.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.11.2010 at about 10.00 a.m, while the complainant namely, Arindra Kakati, along with his staff and one member of Panbari Manas National Park Protection and Eco Tourism, were performing patrolling duty, they received information that the appellant no.1, herein, had kept meat of deer in his house. Accordingly, the complainant along with his party proceeded to the house of the appellant no.1, and, caught the appellant along with the appellant no.2 along meat of deer weighing 3 ½ kg. It is projected that on being asked, the appellants, herein, had confessed that they had purchased the meat from the house of one Ena Bodo for eating. The meat of dear was seized and the appellants, herein, were brought to the forest office and subsequently forwarded to the Court.

Thereafter, the offence report for violation of Sections 9, 27 and

29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was laid.

The learned SDJM(M), Bijni, thereafter committed the case for Trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon. The matter was thereafter transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon, for disposal. During the Trial charge under Section 51 of the Act of 1972, was framed against the appellants, herein, and the same on being read over and explained to them, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a Trial ensued. The prosecution during the Trial examined 4(four) witnesses and thereafter, the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC.

On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court vide Judgment dated 05.12.2013, proceeded to convict the appellants, herein, under Section 51 of the Act of 1972. On their such conviction they were sentenced as noticed hereinabove.

Being aggrieved the appellants have instituted the present proceedings.

4. Mr. A. Kundu, learned counsel for the appellants, has at the outset submitted that the prosecution during the Trial had miserably failed to connect the meat so seized, to relate to any one of the animal as mentioned in the Schedule to the Act of 1972. He had further submitted that no opinion of an expert either Forensic Expert and/or of Veterinary Expert was received by the prosecution with regard to the nature of the meat so seized from the possession of the appellants, herein. Mr. Kundu, has submitted that during the Trial, the appellants, herein, had taken a plea that no meat of deer was seized from their possession. Mr. Kundu, in the above premises submits that the presumption permissible to be drawn under the provisions of Section 57 could not have been drawn in the present case, inasmuch as, it was not established during the Trial that the meat purportedly seized from the appellants was relatable to any one of the animal so set out to the provisions of the Schedule to the Act of 1972