Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal revision application filed by five accused (Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13) challenging their conviction and sentence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The prosecution case was that on 16 August 2005, based on secret information, Forest Guard Anand Meshram (PW-2) and other forest officials raided the house of accused No.1 Najuk Gahane at Village Heti, where they found Chital meat being cooked in a pot. Accused No.1 admitted purchasing the meat from other accused. This led to the arrest of the remaining accused, who made confessional statements and led the officials to the spot where two Chitals were killed, resulting in seizure of meat, weapons, and trap material. The trial court convicted all accused under Sections 9, 27, 29, and 31 read with Section 51(1) of the Act, sentencing them to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.300 each. The appellate court dismissed the appeal except for modifying the sentence. In revision, the High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of forest officials and the confessional statements. The court held that Section 50 of the Act makes such statements admissible despite the Indian Evidence Act. The recoveries at the instance of the accused corroborated the statements. The court found no infirmity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Wildlife Offences - Confessional Statements - Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - The court considered the admissibility of confessional statements made by accused to forest officers. Held that Section 50 of the Act overrides the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and such statements are admissible in evidence. The court found that the confessional statements of the applicants were voluntary and corroborated by recoveries of meat and weapons. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Wildlife Offences - Recovery of Evidence - Sections 9, 27, 29, 31, 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - The court examined whether the recovery of Chital meat and weapons at the instance of the accused was sufficient to prove the offence. Held that the recoveries, coupled with the confessional statements and testimony of forest officials, established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court upheld the conviction and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicants under Sections 9, 27, 29, 31 read with Section 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is sustainable based on the evidence of confessional statements and recoveries.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application and upheld the conviction and sentence of the applicants under Sections 9, 27, 29, 31 read with Section 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Law Points
- Confessional statements made to forest officers are admissible under Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act
- 1972
- which has an overriding effect over the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- recovery of wild animal meat and weapons at the instance of accused is corroborative evidence
- conviction can be based on testimony of forest officials if found reliable.
