Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 607 (UTT)

STATE OF U. P. v. SUNDER SINGH

2012-09-20

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.08.1999, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, in Criminal Case No. 944 of 1997, whereby said court has acquitted accused/ respondents Sunder Singh (s/o Chora Singh), Bahadur Singh, Roop Singh, Indra Singh, Jaspal Singh, Kundan Singh and Sunder Singh (s/o Prem Singh) from the charge of offences punishable under section 31, 35, 51 and 52 of Wild Life Protection Act, one punishable under section 26 of Forest Act and one punishable under section 25 of Arms Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 17.11.1997, at about 9:30 a.m., near Ravigram, seven accused/respondents were seen coming by the team of Forest Officials consisting of P.W.1 Dhiresh Chandra Bist, P.W.2 Trilok Singh, P.W.3 Man Singh Rana, P.W.4 Kashwi Lal Shah and some others. Suspecting accused/respondents were going for poaching in the forest, they were apprehended by the Forest Officials. The case of the Forest Officials is that accused/respondents admitted that they had killed one deer which they had roasted and eaten. It is also alleged that accused/respondents further admitted that they killed one musk deer. Form H2 was prepared by the Forest Official registering crime no. 3 of 1997-98, and criminal complaint (Ex. A6) was presented before the court. It appears that certain recovery memos relating to recovery of license of gun, a skin of deer and cartridges were made by the Forest Officials. 4. The trial court summoned the accused/respondents, and charge in respect of offences punishable under section 31, 35, 51, 52 of Wild Life Protection Act, under section 26 of Forest Act and under section 25 of Arms Act was framed on 07.04.1998 to which of the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Dhiresh Chandra Bist, P.W.2 Trilok Singh, P.W.3 Man Singh Rana and P.W. 4 Kashwi Lal Shah (all Forest Officials). Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. It is also pleaded by the accused/respondents that on 27.11.1997, they were in jail as such recovery shown from them is false. 5. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. It is also pleaded by the accused/respondents that on 27.11.1997, they were in jail as such recovery shown from them is false. 5. As far as prosecution under section 25 Arms Act is concerned, it is clear from the record of the trial court that there was no sanction obtained from the District Magistrate, and the prosecution sought conviction of the accused which could not have been done under law as such, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution under section 25 Arms Act cannot be maintained without there being any valid sanction from the District Magistrate under the Arms Act. 6. As to the alleged recovery made from the accused/ respondents is concerned, though prosecution case is that on 27.11.1997, on pointing out of the accused one skin of deer, some cartridges etc, were recovered but said alleged recovery is highly doubtful for the simple reason that P.W.2 Trilok Singh, P.W.3 Man Singh Rana and P.W.4 Kashwi Lal Shah have admitted that on 27.11.1997, the accused were behind the bars as such there could not have been any recovery from the accused/respondents unless the police remand sought from the Magistrate to take the accused/respondents to the place from where the alleged recovery was made. The trial court is correct in holding that the case of prosecution cannot be believed relating to recovery of these items. 7. As to the alleged admission by accused that they had killed one deer and female musk deer, said confessional statements made to the Forest Officials cannot be believed particularly when there is no independent witness of said fact. 8. For the reasons as discussed above,this Court finds no substance in the appeal which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back.