JAIPAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Aman Dev Singh, learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for respondent.

(2.) Accused-revisionist has been convicted for committing offence under Section 9 read with Section 51 of Wilelife Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") by Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor vide judgment and order dated 26.04.1990 in Criminal Case No. 75 of 1986 for killing a peacock. Thereagainst revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1990 which has been dismissed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor by judgment and order dated 30.11.1992.

(3.) Counsel for revisionist submitted that finding of guilt recorded by both the Courts below is incorrect inasmuch revisionist was not guilty of hunting the peacock and he had no weapon, hence it cannot be said that he has committed any crime; even the statement of PW-1 which has been relied on by both the Courts below is unreliable as First Information Report was lodged on the next day and PW-1 in his cross-examination said that there was darkness therefore there was no occasion for him to identify the revisionist.