ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the Judgment dated 02.03.2021 in Crl.A.No.122 of 2017, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris, confirming the Judgment dated 24.05.2017 in C.C.No.103 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Gudalur and acquit the accused in the interest of Justice.

2. The respondent herein filed a case in O.R.No.5 of 2009 for the offences under Section 21(f) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1972 and Sections 8, 9, 16, 31, 39(1)(2), 50 read with 51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. After completing the investigation, the respondent/Police have filed the charge sheet before learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur. The learned Magistrate, Gudalur had taken the charge sheet on file in CC.No.103 of 2010. After trial, the trial Court found the petitioners guilty of the offences under Section 9 read with Section 51(1) of the the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.122 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Judge, Nilgiris and the same was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris against the Judgment passed on 24.05.2017 in M.C.No.22 of 2012. After hearing the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate.

4. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

5. The case of the prosecution is that the forest officials went to Cherumulli for raid and upon enquiry, they came to know that a Bison head, skin and hunting gun have been buried at Kurumbar Pettai near a pond at Doctorkadu. The forest officials went to the said place, dug the earth and recovered the above articles under a recovery mahazer. They obtained confession statement of A1 and A3 and recovered cooked Bison from the house of A3 based on his confession. The material objects were produced before PW5 Veterinary Doctor and subsequently, upon his instructions, the material objects of Bison were buried under the Earth. The gun was remanded before the Court. After investigation, PW4 laid the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the case was taken on file and after conducting the trial, the accused convicted the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that PW4 is not a competent authority to investigate the matter. The balance of the Bison meat was not clearly accounted by the prosecution witnesses. Neither MO1 country gun, nor the Bison materials, were sent for Forensic lab to get opinion and the condition of the said gun was not established, ie., as to whether it can be used to shoot the animals. Further, it is not proved that the the recovered cooked meat belongs to Bison. Though the prosecution has stated that the recovery was made in the presence of the independent witnesses and confession statement was also recorded in the presence of the independent witnesses, unless recovery and confession statement are alleged to have been made before the forest officials, the same are not proved, and the same is not admissible in evidence and it is not proved in the manner known to law. Though the prosecution has stated that the head and skin of Indian Bison and along with the country gun were recovered under Ex.P3 by recovery mahazer and the 3rd petitioner was arrested and from his house, cooked Bison was recovered in Ex.P4. The confession statement of A1 and A2 were recorded as Exs. P1 and P2. The confession statement of A3 was recorded in Ex.P6. The veterinary Doctor was examined as PW5 who has also not stated that he conducted test and found that it is the meat