The state has a responsibility to provide adequate compensation for wild animal attacks; evidence must be thoroughly considered when claims are disputed.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2025 Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order, whereby the request made by the petitioner for compensation due to the death of his father in a wild animal attack was rejected.

2. Petitioner submits that his father died on 11.08.2019 in an attack by a wild boar. On 11.08.2019 at about 10 AM deceased Varghese went out of the house for the purpose of grazing cows. Till noon he did not reach home. On a search conducted he was found dead due to the attack of a wild boar at a place about 1 km away from his house. Consequent to the death, police has registered Crime No.551/2019 under Section 174 of Cr.PC and conducted investigation. The first informant has given a statement to the effect that the deceased died due to the attack by a wild boar. Ext.P3 report of the death of said Varghese also states that the death happened due to the attack by a wild boar. Ext.P4 is the post-mortem certificate in which it is opined that the cause of death suggests that the deceased was attacked by an animal. Ext.P5 is the inquest report, wherein almost four persons gave statement to the effect that the death happened due to the attack by a wild boar. In Ext.P5 it is further stated that almost all the persons in the Panchayat are in unison regarding the cause of death of deceased Varghese that it happened due to the attack by a wild boar. Ext.P7 is the newspaper report, wherein also it is reported that the said Varghese died due to the attack by a wild boar.

3. A request was made for payment of compensation towards death due to attack by a wild animal, and by Ext.P8 a reply was given as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, that, as it is not clear as to whether the death has happened due to the attack by a wild boar, the request for compensation stands rejected. Thereupon Exts.P9 and P10 requests were made before the Government, and Ext.P11 before the District Collector, Kannur. As no action was taken on the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P12 request for compensation in proper form. Ext.P13 series of photographs were also produced to show the nature of injuries on the body of the deceased and contended that the depth of the wound on the neck and other parts of the body will categorically prove that the death has happened due to an attack by a wild boar.

4. A detailed statement has been filed by the 6th respondent, placing reliance on Annexure.R6(a) report submitted by the Section Forest OfÏcer that, on enquiry, no evidence could be gathered that it is an attack by a wild boar, and Ext.R6(d) post- mortem report only says that the death was due to an attack by an animal. Relying on the injuries noted in Ext.R6(b) post-mortem report it is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) that the nature of the wound and other marks present in the dead body make it clear that the death was not due to an attack by a wild boar. The Divisional Forest OfÏcer (Flying Squad), Kannur Division conducted an enquiry and has taken statement of a nearby resident as Ext.R6(c), in which he gave a statement to the effect that he has seen an ox with blood and sand on its horn and therefore, the death of the said Varghese has happened due to attack by an ox, and the contention that he was attacked by a wild boar is only an attempt to get compensation on the said basis.

5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.

6. The case of the petitioner is that his father died in an attack by a wild boar, and that he is entitled for compensation. Ext.P4 post-mortem certificate reveals that the death of the deceased was due to an attack by an animal. Crime was regi