BAHADUR RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2013 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Almora, in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2012, Nand Ram and another Vs State and another (for short "the appeal"). By the impugned judgment and order, the conviction of the revisionists under Section 50/51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short "the Act") and the sentences, as imposed by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora on 25.04.2012, in Criminal Case No. 328 of 2010, P.B. Upreti Vs. Nand Ram and another (for short "the case), has been upheld and confirmed.

(2.) Briefly stated, according to the prosecution on 10.10.2001, PW1 Ram Pal Singh, Forest Guard alongwith Watcher PW4 Janardhan Pandey found a leopard (Guldaar) dead, which had no skin. A report was given by PW2 Ram Pal Singh to the Police Station Someshwar on the same day, and the post mortem of the leopard was conducted. According to the post mortem, the death was caused due to poisoning. It was informed to the Forest Officers that the revisionists removed the skin of leopard on 08.10.2001. From the house of the revisionist Nand Ram, skin of the leopard and instruments like knife etc. were recovered. The record reveals that based on the FIR lodged by PW2 Ram Pal Singh, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and proceeding of criminal case No. 185 of 2002, State Vs. Nand Ram and another, was instituted in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora ("the former case"). In the former case, at the stage of framing of charge, an application was moved by the revisionists for their discharge. It was rejected on 10.11.2003. This order dated 10.11.2003 was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2003, Nand Ram and another Vs. State before the court of Sessions Judge, Almora. The revision was allowed and the order taking cognizance as well as the charge framed in the former case on 16.07.2003, were quashed. The entire proceedings of the former case were quashed.

(3.) Thereafter, PW1 B.B. Upreti filed a complaint under Section 50/51 of the Act against the revisionists. It is basis of the case. After inquiry, cognizance was taken. On 24.02.2007, the court discharged the revisionists. The order discharging the revisionists was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 8 of 2007. The revision was allowed and the trial court was directed to decide the case. In evidence, total six witnesses, namely, PW1 B.B. Upreti complainant, PW2 Ram Pal, PW3 Manmohan Tiwari, PW4 Janardhan Pandey, PW5 Hira Singh Kanyal and PW6 Bali Ram Arya were examined.