BHIMRAJ MAHAR Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6/10/2008 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Criminal Appeal No. 183/2008 arising out of the judgment, finding and sentence dated 7/8/2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat in Criminal Case No. 332/2007, whereby the Applicant has been convicted under Section 39 read with Section 51 (Proviso) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972') and sentenced to RI. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default SI for 120 days.

(2.) Prosecution case in short is that on 4/2/2007 Sanjay Singh, Sub Inspector, Police Station Bharveli received information that three persons are coming towards Amerha having tiger trophy to hand over to the smuggler. He recorded this information on Roinamcha Sanha and proceeded to the spot for verifying such information. After sometimes three persons viz. Bhimraj, Pardesi and Gendlal came there. A search was conducted. The Applicant was found having possession of tiger trophy in a plastic bag, which was seized from him. They were arrested. Disclosure statement of Pardesi was recorded and in pursuance thereof an iron cutter used in removing trophy was seized. FIR was recorded whereby Crime No. 10/07 was registered against the accused persons under Sections 9, 49-B and 51 of the Act, 1972. Spot map was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The seized trophy was sent for chemical examination to Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun from where report received. After completing the usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat.

(3.) The accused persons were charged under Section 39 read with Section 51 of the Act, 1972. This Applicant was further charged under the proviso of Section 51 of the Act, 1972. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons. They abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Accused persons did not examine any witness. After appreciating the evidence, trial Court acquitted the accused persons from the charges under Section 39 read with Section 51 of the Act, 1972, but this Applicant was found guilty under Section 39 read with Section 51 (Proviso) of the Act, 1972 and sentenced thereto. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 183/2008 before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence, instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision.