JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.2.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case No.86/2015 convicting the accused appellant under Section 51 (1) and 9/27 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one years. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 29.11.2014 one carcass of rhino with bullet injuries in the area of Natun beel camp under Agaratoli Range of Kaziranga National Park was found without its horn being chopped off. Thereafter the police and forest department had started their investigation and on 29.12.2014 the personnel of STF apprehended the accused Kerkon Pegu and Arun Patgiri. On being interrogated they admits their guilt along with Tankeswar Pegu, Latu Kutum, Sunti Patgiri, who shot down the rhino and chopped of its horn. On completion of the investigation offence report was submitted against the accused persons u/s 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act for contravention of section 2 (16)/2 (35)/9/27 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Thereafter the appellant faced trial and denied the charge that was framed against him U/S 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The trial was held by the learned Sessions Judge as the same is triable by the Court of Sessions. 3. During the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses and defence examined none. Plea of defence is total denial. Statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC recorded wherein also he denied the allegations. At the conclusion of trial, learned trial Court found and held the accused guilty U/S 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. 4. Being aggrieved with the said judgment the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently protested to the authenticity of the prosecution case and it has been submitted that FIR itself as well as other circumstances is not at all sufficient to implicate the complicity of the present petitioner. According to him, the present two accused appellants were arrested after more than one month of the occurrence, that too, without any recovery from their possession. According to him, the present two accused appellants were arrested after more than one month of the occurrence, that too, without any recovery from their possession. Assailing the statement that was recorded from one of the witnesses U/S 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act it has been submitted that same has no legal sanctity as it was not recorded as mandated under the law nor the same appears no any case reference in the same statement vide Ext.1. Thus it has been submitted that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and as such conviction entails on such testimony is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Also heard Mr. B. J. Dutta, learned Addl. P.P. on the subject, who however acceded to the submission that the testimony of the accused that was recorded by PW 2 is not proper. 7. Bearing in mind the aforesaid submission, let us examine the evidence on record. As has been submitted that the accused persons were arrested without any recovery from them, same was found to be true. 8. PW 1, Sri Purna Mohalia, Deputy Ranger, Eastern Range, Agoratoli and PW 2, Dharani Borah, Deputy Ranger, Kokoka Range Forest Office, Kaziranga Wildlife Sanctuary. Both of them have given similar evidence that on 29.11.2014 while they were working at Agargoli Forest Range they heard sound of gun fire and they tried to caught hold of the miscreants but nothing was found and they only found one dead rhino whose horn was chopped. Thereafter on 29.12.2014 personnel from STF apprehended the accused Kerkon Pegu and Arun Patgiri and they were subsequently handed over to range office. Statement of those persons were recorded by PW 2 (vide Ext.1 and PW 1 is the witness of said statement). According to them the accused persons admitted their guilt for the offence and thereafter on the basis of their statement offence report was submitted and accordingly, trial was held. 9. Certain matters have come up from their evidence that said incident of killing of rhino was happened on 29.11.2014 and exactly after one month 29.12.2014 the accused appellants were apprehended from their houses without their being any recovery of article of rhino and the prosecution simply relied upon the statement so recorded by the PW 2. 9. Certain matters have come up from their evidence that said incident of killing of rhino was happened on 29.11.2014 and exactly after one month 29.12.2014 the accused appellants were apprehended from their houses without their being any recovery of article of rhino and the prosecution simply relied upon the statement so recorded by the PW 2. Admittedly, there is no eye witness or even substantial evidence as against the accused petitioner, save and except the statement so recorded by PW 2. As we found that PW 2 is a Deputy Ranger, Kokoka Range Forest Office, Kaziranga Wildlife Sanctuary, who recorded the statement of witnesses vide Ext.1 immediately after their arrest but the law provided that such statement of an accused should be taken by an officer in the rank of an Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or [ an officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the State Government in this behalf]. Section 50(8) of the Act is elaborate and clear which reads as follows:- “(8) Notwith standing any thing contained in any other law of the time being inforce, any officer not below Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or [an officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests authorized by the State Government in this behalf] shall have the powers, for purposes of making investigation in to any offence against any provisions of this Act.-” (a) to issue a search warrant; (b) to enforce the attendance of witnesses; (c) to compel the discovery an production of document sand material objects ; and (d) to receive and record evidence] (9) Any evidence recorded under clause (d) of sub-section(8) shall be admissible in any subsequent trial before a Magistrate provided that it has been taken in the presence of the accused person.]” 10. Now in the instant case the present investigating officer, who recorded the statement of the accused appellants is apparently a below ranked officer than Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or [ an officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the State Government in this behalf] and is also not a gazetted officer. That being so, legally he is not authorised to record such statement of accused appellants under the law. On the other hand, it is discernible that Ext.1 bears no any date, case no. etc. That being so, legally he is not authorised to record such statement of accused appellants under the law. On the other hand, it is discernible that Ext.1 bears no any date, case no. etc. and nothing to show as to why it was recorded and it is simply a piece of paper. Further said witnesses who have recorded the said statements have also stated that it was recorded on 29.12.2014, whereas Ext.1 reveals that it was recorded on 30.12.2014. 11. Although the provision of Section 50(8) & (9) of the Act is a enabling provision to assist the investigation by way of recording evidence by officers in the different rank but in the instant case, as has been discussed above, the same is not complied as per the mandate of law. Thus the Ext.1 cannot be exclusively relied on by the prosecution. Minus the statement of accused persons there is no leg to stand by the prosecution as there is no any witness to the occurrence as to under what circumstances the rhino was killed and who was involved in killing the same. The accused appellant in his statement U/S 313 CrPC and in course of trial also has disown the statement made by him. Such a statement was recorded after the accused was taken into custody by the forest officers and voluntariness of the said statement is also come under serious doubt. The PW 3 Sri Pallav Saikia is a hearsay witness and has no any personal knowledge about the offence. So, whatsoever may be his statement that the accused persons have transaction in connection with killing of rhino inside the Kaziranga Sanctuary is of no consequence. 12. From the over all evidence on record it is evident that on 24.11.2014 dead body of one rhino was found inside the Sanctuary and there is no evidence to show whether the rhino was killed or it was natural death. No post mortem report was done to establish that the rhino was killed. Further the prosecution has not able to adduce evidence that the accused appellant was associated with killing of said rhino and accordingly, no any sort of article, gun, money etc were seized from the accused person. No post mortem report was done to establish that the rhino was killed. Further the prosecution has not able to adduce evidence that the accused appellant was associated with killing of said rhino and accordingly, no any sort of article, gun, money etc were seized from the accused person. Such an evidence on the part of the prosecution which solely relied upon the statement of accused vide Ext.1 cannot be accepted to base conviction of a person which was not recorded as per law itself. 13. It is to be noted that the learned trial Court has fully relied upon the statement of accused person so recorded by the forest officials. The learned Court has also relied upon the provision of Section 57 of the Act that the Court can take presumption in such cases but arrive at a conclusion of guilt. But what has been discussed above, such a finding of the Court is not sustainable. 14. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, conviction and sentence of the accused appellant is hereby stands set aside and quashed and the accused appellant is set at liberty forthwith. 15. With the above directions and observations, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed. Return the LCR.