Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to three revision applications filed by Vinod Diwakar Sontakke, Kuldip Madhukar Chaudhari, and Shridhar Kawadu Yerawar against the judgment and order dated 17.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, which dismissed their appeals against conviction and sentence under Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The applicants were originally convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli on 04.09.2018 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000 each, with default simple imprisonment for one month. The prosecution case was based on a complaint by PW-1 Mohan Naikwade, Assistant Conservator of Forests, who received secret information on 20.01.2014 about possession of a leopard skin at village Chamorshi. A raid was conducted, and the skin was allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused. The trial court convicted the accused, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. The High Court heard the revision applications and admitted them for final disposal with consent. The court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had not examined any independent witnesses despite their availability, and the recovery was not witnessed by independent persons. The court also noted that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act regarding search and seizure were not complied with, and the investigating officer was not examined. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the courts below erred in convicting the accused. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision applications, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the applicants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Wildlife Offences - Conviction under Section 9 read with Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Recovery of Leopard Skin - Lack of Independent Witnesses - The court held that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses despite their availability, and the recovery was not witnessed by any independent person, casting doubt on the prosecution case. (Paras 8-10) B) Criminal Law - Wildlife Offences - Mandatory Provisions - Section 50 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - The court noted that the provisions of Section 50 regarding the procedure for search and seizure were not complied with, and the investigating officer was not examined, leading to a fatal lacuna in the prosecution case. (Paras 11-12) C) Criminal Law - Appellate Court - Reversal of Conviction - The High Court in revision set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the courts below erred in convicting the accused based on unreliable evidence and non-compliance with statutory requirements. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicants under Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is sustainable in the absence of independent witnesses and non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision applications, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, and acquitted the applicants of the offence punishable under Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Law Points
- Wild Life (Protection) Act
- 1972
- Section 9
- Section 51
- Section 50
- Evidence Act
- 1872
- Section 114(g)
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- Section 374
- Section 397
- Section 401
