JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused as well as Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Forest Department, Assam appearing for the State respondents. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2018, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case No. 66/2015, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted u/s. 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 read with (Assam Amendment) Act, 2009 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for three months. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.01.2005, one bullet ridden carcass of rhino without its horn was recovered on the northern side of Khainala of Chibe Chapori under 6th addition of Kaziranga National Park (KNP). Accordingly, investigation into the said incident was carried out by both the Police as well as by the Forest Department. Regarding the incident, one ejahar was lodged at Ghahigaon Police Station under Sonitpur District, vide letter No. ER/40/2015/9697, dated 11.01.2015. 4. In connection with the above incident, on 27.03.2015, at about 11 A.M. the police of Helem P.S. on suspicion apprehended one Sukhdev Das (since deceased) and after preliminary inquiry, handed him over to Biswanath Range Office, who was then handed over to Eastern Range, Agaratoli for thorough enquiry on 29.03.2015. On interrogation, the apprehended accused Sukhdev Das confessed that on 04.01.2015, during night hours, he along with (1) Golok Das (2) Kiran Das @ Moina Das, (3) Gobindra Das, (4) Chandan Das, (5) Mili Palu, (6) Manik Das (present appellant), (7) Kalia Das, (8) Sibeswar Das and (9) Monu Ali killed the rhino by firing bullets and then took away its horn by chopping off the same. There were other two unidentified persons with them at the time of killing the rhino. One .303 riffle was brought by accused Kiran Das along with bullets and another was taken by accused Monu Ali. 5. As per the confession of accused Sukhdev Das (since deceased), accused Kiran Das @ Moina Das killed the rhino by firing and thereafter both the accused Kiran Das and Monu Ali took away the rifles brought by them. As per the confession of accused Sukhdev Das (since deceased), the weight of the horn of the killed rhino was 915 gms. As per the confession of accused Sukhdev Das (since deceased), accused Kiran Das @ Moina Das killed the rhino by firing and thereafter both the accused Kiran Das and Monu Ali took away the rifles brought by them. As per the confession of accused Sukhdev Das (since deceased), the weight of the horn of the killed rhino was 915 gms. and the same was sold in Arunachal Pradesh for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- out of which accused Sukhdev Das received an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from accused Golok Das. It is alleged that accused Sukhdev Das was an informer of the Forest Department but instead he illegally joined hands with the rhino poachers. 6. As per Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, accused Sukhdev Das was arrested and forwarded to the Court and on completion of the Departmental enquiry, offence report was submitted against the accused Sukhdev Das under Sections 2(16)/2(35)/6/27/39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, punishable u/s. 51 of the said Act. 7. On appearance of the accused, relevant copies were furnished to the accused persons and the learned Court vide order dated 26.05.2015, committed the case against accused Sukhdev Das to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat for favour of trial. 8. Subsequently, the accused Manik Das was arrested on 26.05.2015 and produced before the court with a prayer that he may be treated as an accused with the same offence report that has been filed against the accused Sukhdev Das. On the basis of said prayer, the case of Manik Das was also committed to the learned Court of Sessions and thereafter joint trial was held as against both the accused persons. However, the accused Sukhdev Das expired during the course of the trial and hence, case against him was abated. Only the accused Manik Das faced the trial and denied the charge framed under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 9. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether four witnesses including the I.O. Dharani Bora. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has denied all the allegations. The plea of defence was of total denial and no evidence was adduced in support of his case. 10. 9. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether four witnesses including the I.O. Dharani Bora. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has denied all the allegations. The plea of defence was of total denial and no evidence was adduced in support of his case. 10. After hearing the arguments advanced by the parties and perusal of the materials available, the learned trial court by its judgment and order dated 27.06.2018, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and conviction, the present appeal is preferred on the ground inter alia that the evidence available on record does not warrant any conviction u/s. 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, that the learned trial Court erred in both law and facts in convicting the appellant, that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 12. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.2018. I have also gone through the case record of the trial Court including the statements of the witnesses. 13. The learned trial court examined the I.O. Sri Dharani Bora as PW-1, who in his deposition stated that on 10.01.2015, he was attached to Agaratoli Range Office as Deputy Ranger. On that day, at about 10:30/11:00 A.M. staff of Chibe Chapori camp reported him that carcass of a rhino without its horn was detected by them in a drain in northern direction of Kharoi in Chibe Chapori area of Kajiraga National Park. As the place of occurrence was far away from the Range Office, on the following day i.e. on 11.01.2015, he along with his staff and one Forest Veterinary Officer went to the place of occurrence. The Forest Veterinary Officer conducted postmortem examination. 14. Then on 27.03.2015, the police of Helem P.S. apprehended one Sukhdev Das (since deceased) and on the following day i.e. on 28.03.2015, the police, handed him over to Biswanath Ghat Range Office, who was subsequently handed over to the PW-1, for interrogation. On interrogation, accused Sukhdev Das confessed about killing of the aforesaid rhino and the taking of its horn away. Sri Pradip Ch. Haud, ACF, recorded his statement. On interrogation, accused Sukhdev Das confessed about killing of the aforesaid rhino and the taking of its horn away. Sri Pradip Ch. Haud, ACF, recorded his statement. Thereafter, accused Sukhdev Das was arrested in connection with the offence and produced before the Court with a forwarding letter to register a case. Ext.5 is the confessional statement made by accused Sukhdev Das, wherein Ext.5(1) is the signature of writer of the statement Mr. Padip Ch. Haud, ACF and Ext.5(2) and 5(3) are the signatures of accused Sukhdev Das. 15. PW-1 stated in his evidence that as per the confessional statement of accused Sukhdev Das, present appellant/accused Manik Das was involved with the incident of killing of the rhino. Accordingly, on his arrest by the staff of Bargaon Range Office, accused Manik Das was handed over to the Range Office and was taken into custody. On interrogation, the appellant/accused Manik Das confessed before the PW-1 that he and accused Sukhdev Das along with few others had killed a rhino in a drain at Chibe Chapori and then cut away its horn and out of the sale proceeds, accused Manik Das received an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as his share. The confessional statement made by accused Manik Das was also recorded by Mr. Padip Ch. Haud, ACF and Ext.6 is the said statement and Ext.6(2) and 6(3) are the signatures of accused Manik Das. In his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that Ext.10 offence report was laid only against accused Sukhdev Das without taking steps against others including the present appellant/ accused Manik Das nor were they shown as absconders. 16. Other two witnesses Sri Kumud Gogoi, PW-2, Forest Guard-I, Eastern Range, Agartoli accompanied PW-1 on 10.01.2015 when they went in search of the rhino as per the information received and stated about the finding of dead rhino without its horn. His further evidence is limited to the aspect of arrest of one accused Sukhdev Das by Helem Police on 27.03.2015, who was produced before PW-1 and thereafter PW1 arrested Sri Sukhdev Das. Subsequently, another accused Manik Das was also arrested and certain articles were seized in his presence vide Ext.8 seizure list and Ext.8(3) is his signature. 17. The Deputy Ranger, Eastern Range, Agartali Sri Purna Mahalia as PW-3, supporting the case of the prosecution has stated about the finding of dead rhino with bullet injury as stated by other witnesses. Subsequently, another accused Manik Das was also arrested and certain articles were seized in his presence vide Ext.8 seizure list and Ext.8(3) is his signature. 17. The Deputy Ranger, Eastern Range, Agartali Sri Purna Mahalia as PW-3, supporting the case of the prosecution has stated about the finding of dead rhino with bullet injury as stated by other witnesses. He also visited the place of occurrence and took photographs of the killed rhino and postmortem examination of the dead rhino was also done. Further, it is stated that the accused Sukhdev was arrested in connection with the case and his statement was recorded by PW-4, Pradip Ch. Haud who admitted that he along with other persons, namely, Manu Ali, Manik Ali, Golok Das and Sri Dompay Kardong killed the rhino and chopped the horn of the rhino weighing about 915 grams and it was sold in Arunachal Pradesh for Rs. 7 lakh and sale proceed was distributed among them and Rs. 20,000/- was given to Manik Das. On the basis of the statement of Sukhdev Das subsequently Manik Das was also arrested and from the possession of Manik Das one mobile handset, two SIM cards and one memory card was seized through Ext.8 seizure list and his signature thereon. He, however, submitted that he was not present at the time of recording statement of the accused persons Sukhdev Das and Manik Das. 18. The Assistant Conservator of Forest, namely, Pradip Ch. Haud in his evidence has stated about all other facts that have been stated by other witnesses that after finding of killed rhino at Chibe Chapori, PW-1 lodged the FIR and investigation was done by both police as well as Forest Department. During the investigation, police arrested accused Sukhdev Das and Manik Das on suspicion, they were handed over to Easter Assam Forest Division and they were interrogated by him on their production, vide Ext.5 and Ext.6 are the statements of the accused persons Sukhdev Das (since deceased) and Manik Das with their signatures thereon. Both the accused persons admitted about the killing of rhino on 04.01.2015. 19. In cross-examination he has stated that at the time of recording confessional statement no other Forest staff were present and there is no mention in Ext.5 and Ext.6 about giving time for reflection or about consequence of making such statement. Both the accused persons admitted about the killing of rhino on 04.01.2015. 19. In cross-examination he has stated that at the time of recording confessional statement no other Forest staff were present and there is no mention in Ext.5 and Ext.6 about giving time for reflection or about consequence of making such statement. He, however, denied that such a statement was obtained in blank papers after physical and mental torture upon the accused persons. 20. The learned trial court discussed and held that the statements given by the accused persons are confessional in nature and they give a description of the occurrence and the fact that accused made such confession which is also corroborated by PW-1 and PW-2. The court further held that there is no rule of law that uncorroborated extra judicial confession cannot be relied on and relying upon the confessional statement made by the accused Manik Das that he was actively involved in killing of rhino and received the sale proceed of its horn, found and held the accused guilty under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The learned court discarded the submission of the defence side that originally accused Manik Das was not sent up for trial with the offence report treating the same as a technical matter and convicted the accused person as aforesaid. Challenging the legality of the findings, appellant is before this Court. 21. In the present appeal primarily challenge has been made that only on the basis of confession of co-accused, one cannot be convicted. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. P.K. Munir has pointed out that the dead body of rhino was recovered on 10.01.2015 and subsequent to filing of the FIR, one of the accused persons Sukhdev Das was arrested on 27.03.2015 by police and his confessional statement was recorded on 30.05.2015 and offence report was also submitted only against him. Later on, present accused/appellant Manik Das was arrested on 25.05.2015 and his statement was recorded. It has been vehemently objected such a statement which was recorded after arrest which was also not corroborated by other independent witnesses coupled with the fact that there is no recovery of weapon of offence and money etc. such a confessional statement cannot be relied upon by the prosecution, particularly so when no offence report was submitted against the accused person. 22. such a confessional statement cannot be relied upon by the prosecution, particularly so when no offence report was submitted against the accused person. 22. Relying on a decision of Peoples Union for Civil Liberties vs. C.B.I. 1997 Crl. L.J. 3242, it has been submitted that confessional statement of the deceased co-accused would be inadmissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act because a joint trial would be no longer possible after his death. Section 30 itself is an exception to the rule in making such confessional admissible/relevant against co-accused because strictly speaking it would be covered by a definition of evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. It is a submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that as the maker of confession died prior to the trial, his confession cannot be accepted as against the co-accused. 23. Further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that such a confession recorded by the Forest Officer must be voluntary but as has been admitted by one of the witnesses about presence of battalion in the Office of the ACF/PW-4 such a statement cannot be treated as a voluntary one. Reference has been made to the decision of Raju Premji vs. Customs NER, Shillong Unit and Others, (2009) 16 SCC 496 , Sansar Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 10 SCC 604 . It has been submitted that although the findings in Raju Premji relates to the provision of Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act but the same principle is applicable to the provision of Section 50(9) of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. In the aforesaid case it has been held that to treat the confession made under Section 67 of NDPS Act and other criminal enactments such as Customs Act, the Court must satisfy itself that such a statement has been made voluntarily and at a time when the person making such statement had not been made an accused in connection with the alleged offence. 24. Referring to the decision in Sansar Chand (supra) it has been submitted that one cannot be convicted solely on the basis of extra judicial confession, unless corroborated by some materials on record. Accordingly, it has been submitted that in the present case, such a confession recorded at a later stage without corroboration cannot be the basis for conviction. 25. 24. Referring to the decision in Sansar Chand (supra) it has been submitted that one cannot be convicted solely on the basis of extra judicial confession, unless corroborated by some materials on record. Accordingly, it has been submitted that in the present case, such a confession recorded at a later stage without corroboration cannot be the basis for conviction. 25. The learned counsel for the respondent is, however, submitted that the confessional statement made to a Forest Officer is not a statement made to a Police Officer or the court to observe the procedure for reflection or any other formalities that has been provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. But under the special law Wild Life (Protection) Act like any other special law, such a statement can be recorded by a Forest Official even if it is in the nature of confessional one. Relying on a decision of Kerala High Court, Forest Range Officer vs. Aboobaker and Another, 1989 Crl. L.J. 2038, it has been submitted that in such case where the offence took place in deep jungle in dead hours of night, corroboration cannot be insisted. In the aforesaid case it has been held that: "The rule of corroboration is a principle of prudence which should not be applied rigidly or punctiliously. If a crime is committed in such a manner that no other person could normally have been present in the vicinity, insistence on the rule of corroboration in such case would maul the cause of justice because such insistence would only help the perpetrator to go scotfree. It should not be forgotten that there is no rule of law that no evidence should be relied on unless there is corroboration. Facts and circumstances may warrant, sometimes, to act on such evidence even without corroboration. Forest is an area where human activities are scanty except the clandestine adventures of poachers. The admissibility of the confession made to the Forest Range Officer is not open to doubt since the embargo contained in S.25 of the Evidence Act is not applicable to it. Forest Officers, though they are invested with, some of the police powers, are not Police Officers. Hence they can give evidence before Court regarding admissions or confessions made to them by accused persons, whether or not such persons were then in custody. Forest Officers, though they are invested with, some of the police powers, are not Police Officers. Hence they can give evidence before Court regarding admissions or confessions made to them by accused persons, whether or not such persons were then in custody. If the Court considers such confession to be reliable, there is no legal bar in acting on such confession." 26. Relying on the decision of Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Vyas Tewari, AIR 1981 SC 635 , it has been submitted that ratio of the said case will squarely cover the matter in hand also where the statement of an accused is recorded by duly empowered officer under the law. It has been held as follows: "Now, it is settled law that an officer of the Railway Protection Force making an inquiry under S. 8(1) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is not a police officer conducting an investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the true position the ban under S.162, Criminal Procedure Code against the evidential use of statements, including the prohibition against signing of statements recorded in the course of police investigation, is not attracted to statements recorded by an officer of the Force maxing an inquiry under S.8(1) of the Act." 27. Similar aspect has been dealt in Balakrishan A. Devidayal vs. State of M.P. AIR 1981 SC 379 , with the following words that: "39. From the comparative study of the relevant provisions of the 1966 Act and the Code, it is abundantly clear that an officer of the RPF making an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the 1966 Act does not possess several important attributes of an officer-in-charge of a police station conducting an investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code. The character of the inquiry is different from that of an investigation under the Code. The official status and powers of an officer of the Force in the matter of inquiry under the 1966 Act differ in material aspects from those of a police officer conducting an investigation under the Code." 28. The character of the inquiry is different from that of an investigation under the Code. The official status and powers of an officer of the Force in the matter of inquiry under the 1966 Act differ in material aspects from those of a police officer conducting an investigation under the Code." 28. Turning to the present case in hand it has been found that although the learned trial court held that confessional statement made by the accused can be accepted as extra judicial confession and also as a confession but strictly speaking such a statement was made before a competent Forest Official and although it partakes the nature of confession to certain extent but there is absolutely no provision that such Officer is to follow certain procedure while recording such statement of an accused. Such a statement recorded by an empowered officer who is in the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forest cannot be discarded unless some serious discrepancy is brought to the notice. In the present case although the appellant has taken the plea that such statement was not voluntary and recorded on threat but same was taken only in course of trial but same was not challenged immediately after recording the same. Only because of presence of officer of battalion outside the Office of PW-4 that cannot be construed as a threat. Such a Forest Officer has no occasion to falsely record the statement of the accused persons and finding of corroboration in such case while the incident took place in the deep forest area at dead hours of night cannot, at all, be feasible and such a forest offence is made in a very clandestine manner in an organized way and it is not possible to have eye witness to corroborate the same. In a given facts and circumstances, statement recorded by PW-4 cannot be excluded from the consideration as has been contended in the present case. 29. In a given facts and circumstances, statement recorded by PW-4 cannot be excluded from the consideration as has been contended in the present case. 29. So far as regard the arrest, the present appellant after filing of offence report it is to be noted that he was arrested with a forwarding letter that his arrest should be treated along with the offence report already filed and accordingly he was treated as an accused in regard to the offence report already filed and charge was also framed against him on the basis of said offence report and the case proceeded for trial only against the present appellant. In the given circumstances, no prejudice was caused to the accused person as he was aware all about the allegation and he faced the trial without any challenge. That being the position, at the end of the trial, such a plea of the accused/appellant is not sustainable. 30. The learned trial court has appreciated all the matters in proper perspective of law and there appears no any illegality in the aforesaid findings. However, considering all facts and circumstances, while maintaining the conviction the sentence is reduced to a period of 3 (three) years and the fine will remain the same. 31. Appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. 32. Return the LCR.