Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 68 (MP)

Mangal Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-01-13

N.K.GUPTA

body2014
ORDER 1. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short “Act”) vide judgment dated 12.9.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni in Criminal Case No.4577/2009 and sentenced with one year’s simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/-. In Criminal Appeal No.206/2012 the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Katni dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with both the judgments, the applicant has filed the present revision. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.2.2003 the officers of the Forest Department along with the police force of Police Station Dhimarkheda took a search at 4:00 AM in the morning in the locality of Pardhi Community. In search it was found that the applicant had a skin of wild animal (Ghutri) and with other accused persons horn of dear etc. were also found, and therefore memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and the case was prepared. 3. The applicant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific evidence in defence, therefore no defence evidence was adduced. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed in toto by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Katni. 5. After considering the evidence given by the Forester P.N.Shrivastava (PW 1), Forest Officer Rajiv Pandey (PW 2), Forest Officer Suryamani Pandey (PW 3), Devraj Mishra (PW 4), Mohd. Khalik (PW 5), Tilakrauj (PW 7) and Assistant Conservator Forest C.S.Verma (PW 6) it is duly established that the applicant had a skin of wild animal (Ghutri). The evidence given by the applicant under section 27 of the Evidence Act is not acceptable, because nothing could be found by such confession. No effective seizure was found after the confessional statement given by the applicant. However, it is established that he had a skin of wild animal (Ghutri). Under such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly convicted the applicant for the offence under section 51 of the Act, 1972. 6. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is true that the applicant was the first offender and he was 70 years old person. He remained in the custody for nine months and eight days. Under such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly convicted the applicant for the offence under section 51 of the Act, 1972. 6. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is true that the applicant was the first offender and he was 70 years old person. He remained in the custody for nine months and eight days. Under such circumstances, looking to the provision of minimum sentence and age of the applicant along with the fact that he was the first offender, it is a fit case in which the sentence of the applicant may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicant is partly allowed. The conviction directed against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act is hereby maintained, but sentence inflicted upon him is hereby reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody. There is no change in the fine amount. It is informed that the applicant has already deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. 8. At present the appellant is on bail, his presence is no more required, and therefore it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 9. A copy of this order be sent to both the Courts below along with their records.