Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 249 (JHR)

Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand

2020-02-07

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 26.03.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa, in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge-IX, Garhwa in C.F. Case No. 110 of 2006, corresponding to T.R. No. 473 of 2012, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 39(1)(B) and (III) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand), has been affirmed. 2. The Prosecution case lies in a short compass. The complainant-Chanrika Ram (PW-9) received a secret information and pursuant to that he along with other employees of Forest Department and police force conducted raid on 20.09.2006 at about 6.30 a.m. in the house of the petitioner situated at village Ataula (Chechariya), P.O. Chechariya, District Garhwa, where seven horns of Deer (Chital and Sambhar) and one piece of skin of Deer were recovered from his house. The raiding party seized the above articles as the same was in violation of Section 9 and 39 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Since the petitioner was not found at the place of occurrence, as such after enquiry, the prosecution report was submitted by the D.F.O. (Divisional Forest Officer), Garhwa on 03.01.2007 for the aforesaid offence. 3. Pursuant to that cognizance under Section 39(I) B, (III) and 44 and 49B of the Act was taken and charges were framed, for which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses on his behalf and also adduced some documentary evidences. 5. Based upon the evidences, both oral and documentary, laid before him, the learned trial court found the petitioner guilty for contravening the provision of the Act and convicted him for the offences as stated herein above. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa. The learned Appellate Court after dealing with the evidences and after hearing the argument of the parties concurred with the finding of the learned trial court and sustained the conviction as well as the sentence. 7. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa. The learned Appellate Court after dealing with the evidences and after hearing the argument of the parties concurred with the finding of the learned trial court and sustained the conviction as well as the sentence. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the seizure list witnesses have admitted the fact that the seizure list was prepared, but they have admitted in the cross-examination that they have put their signatures on a blank paper. He further submits that the D.F.O. who has submitted the prosecution report has not been examined in this case. He contended that the petitioner himself is a school teacher in a Government School at Ramanujganj situated at Chhattisgarh and is not residing at the alleged place of occurrence and it would be incorrect to say that the seized articles were recovered from his possession. He further contended that though the place of occurrence from where the alleged articles have been seized was his ancestral property, but only due to that reason it could not be inferred that alleged seized articles were recovered from his conscious possession. He further contended that all the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel further contended that main defense of the accused right from inception is that the alleged house from where the seized articles were seized was of one Matukdhari Tiwari and does not belong to the petitioner and the same is his ancestral home and he himself being the teacher of a Government School at Ramanujganj situated at Chhattisgarh and he resides at Ramanujganj at Chhattisgarh and not at the place of occurrence at Garhwa. 8. Per-contra, learned APP supports the impugned order and submits that it is very serious offence and in the present time the cruelty against the wild animals is increasing day by day and the same requires to be dealt firmly and the same is essential function of the State. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. After going through the impugned orders including the LCR and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties it appears that the specific case of the petitioner is that the seized articles were not recovered from his conscious possession and as such convicting him for keeping those articles is bad in law and consequently the invocation of penalty should be set aside. It is not the case of the petitioner that those articles were not of wild animals and it is also not the case of the petitioner that the said seized articles cannot be Government property. The simple case of the petitioner is that he was unaware of the seized articles as the place of occurrence from where the articles were seized is his ancestral property and since he be a teacher in a Government School at Ramanujganj situated at Chhattisgarh, he resides at Ramanujganj at Chhattisgarh and not at the place of occurrence at Garhwa. 10. In view of the specific submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the fact that the petitioner is a teacher in a Government School and residing at Chhatisgarh, in my considered opinion, without upsetting the finding made by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate Court, interest of justice would be sufficed, if the sentence imposed by the learned trial court be modified by giving him benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 11. Thus, the judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2012 passed by the trail court and upheld by the learned appellate court is hereby confirmed. 12. However, the petitioner is directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner shall file two sureties to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- coupled with personal bond to the effect that he shall not commit any offence and shall be of good behavior and shall maintain peace during the period of two years. If there is breach of any conditions, he will subject himself to undergo sentence as directed by the learned trial court. The bond aforesaid be filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of this judgment 14. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of. 15. If there is breach of any conditions, he will subject himself to undergo sentence as directed by the learned trial court. The bond aforesaid be filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of this judgment 14. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of. 15. The petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 16. Let the copy of this Order be sent to the court concerned and the petitioner-Narendra Kumar Tiwari forthwith 17. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.