IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 4 of 2008 along with Cr. Revision No. 12 of 2008.

Reserved on: 16 th April, 2019.

Date of Decision: 30 th April, 2019.

1. Cr. Revision No. 4 of 2008.

Davinder Sharma …..Appellant.

Versus State of H.P. ....Respondent.

2. Cr. Revision No. 12 of 2008.

Mahender Singh …..Appellant.

Versus State of H.P. ....Respondent.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Appellant(s): Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate, in Cr.

R. No.4 of 2008 and Mr. N.K. Tomar, Advocate in Cr. R. No. 12 of 2008.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Hemant Vaid and Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge Both the aforesaid Criminal Revisions are bein g disposed of by a common judgment, as, both arise, from, a common verdict rendered, by the learned trial Court.

2. Both the aforementioned criminal revisions, stand directed, by the accused/convicts, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned courts below, vis-a-vis, a charge framed, for, the commission, of, an offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and, the consequent thereto, hence, sentences imposed, upon, them.

3. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 7.5.2000, around 8.00 p.m., the police party headed by Durga Dass Sharma, incharge, CIA Solan, along with other police ofÏcials was present at Nagali rain shelter in connection with patrolling and was checking the vehicles. It is alleged that at that time a blue coloured vehicle No. HP- 16-0405 came from Solan side which was stopped at the spot by Inspector D.D. Sharma and on checking the accused were found sit in the car. It is alleged that on checking the vehicle, a plastic bag was kept in the back seat of the car, which on opening was found to contain three leopard skins of different sizes, regarding which the accused could not produce the permit and then IO seized the leopard skins, bag under memo EX.PW2/A in the presence of witnesses. The IO prepared the rukka and sent it to the police station concerned, on the basis of which FIR borne in Ex.PB came to be registered. The IO prepared the site map as also the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter police completed all the inve stigating formalities and arrested the accused.

4. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court.

5. The accused/convicts stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, theirs committing, an, offence, punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were, recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication in the case.

6. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction, upon, the accused/convicts/petitioners herein, for, theirs committing, an, offence, punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. In appeals preferred therefrom, by the accused/appellants herein, before, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned, the latter afÏrmed the apposite findings of conviction, and, t he, consequent therewith imposition, of, sentence(s), upon, them, as borne, in the judgment, pronounced, by the learned trial Court.

7. The convicts/accused/petitioners herein, stand aggrieved, by the concurrent findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned Courts below. The learned counsel(s) appearing for the accused/petitioners herein, have, concertedly and vigorously contended, qua the findings of conviction, recorded by both the l