FOREST RANGE OFFICER CHUNGATHARA II RANGE Vs. ABOOBACKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For hunting and killing a wild animal (a bison) in a forest area, the respondents were convicted by the trial Magistrate, but were acquitted by the Sessions Court in appeal. The Forest Range Officer, who instituted the prosecution, has presented this appeal with special leave against the said acquittal. Hunting of wild animals is prohibited under S.9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Magistrate who convicted the two respondents under S.51 of the Act sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- each being the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. The Sessions Judge who set aside the conviction and sentence was disinclined to rely on the evidence of the prosecution and hence the acquittal.

(2.) The facts revealed in the prosecution evidence, in short, are these: The three accused in the Trial Court are brothers. They engage themselves in poaching as a past time and also for profit making. They have a gun and other accessories necessary for poaching. During the middle of February, 1985 they went into the vested forest at Munderi (in Nilambur range) and sighted a bison and shot it down. They extracted its meat and sold in open bazaar. The remaining carcass was buried in the ground. On receipt of some unauthentic information about the incident, the forest officials went to the house of the accused. As the first accused was absent in the house then, the Range Officer interrogated the respondents (who were the second and third accused in the Trial Court). They admitted that the bison was shot dead by them and its flesh was sold in open market. The respondents pointed out the spot where they buried the carcass of the animal which included its skull and horns.

(3.) The Chief Judicial Magistrate who tried the case relied on two statements (Exts.P3 and P4) containing the confession made by the respondents before the Range Officer. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the first accused and convicted the other two accused (respondents) for the aforesaid offence. The Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has not been instituted by a person authorised by the State Government as required in S.55 of the Act. He also found that the confessional statements cannot be relied on.