VISHNU CHAMAR Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Vishnu and Munna stand convicted under section 9 read with section 51 of the wild life Protection Act 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with sentence of Rl of one year each and a fine of Rs. 500/ - each vide the impugned judgment dated 30.1.1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Patina in Criminal Appeal No. 14/93. The petitioners have been found guilty of hunting wild animal, Sambhar.

(2.) THE prosecution case shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this revision, is that on 30.3.1989 Beat Guard, Ramchandra (PW 6) while patrolling in the forest, reached compartment No. P -46 in the Siddhpur Forest. He heard the sound of barking dogs. When the patrolling party reached the place of occurrence, they found that a Sambhar was lying dead and the present petitioners and acquitted accused Bhaiyadeen were present there with their hunting dog. They were trying to tie the corpse of Sambhar to facilitate its shifting. One Sanga which is used for shifting of animals and anaxe were also with the accused persons. Beat Guard, Riamcharidra seized the corpse of Sambhar, the Sanga and the axe vide Ex.P -2. He then sent information to his superior officers. Thereupon, Veer Bhadra Mishra (PW 5), Deputy Ranger and S.K. Sharma (PW 8), Ranger reached the' spot and prepared the spot map. They recorded the statements of petitioners and the acquitted accused who confessed their guilt. The corpse of Sambhar was sent for post -mortem examination. Dr. S.K.Shukla (PW 7), Veterinary Surgeon, after examining the corpse and dissection opined that the said animal died due to rupture of juglar vein and wound of skin leading to excessive bleeding and shock. Veterinary Surgeon has further opined that probably, the wound has been caused by biting of some carnivorus animals.Ex. P -7 is the report of Dr. S.K. Shukla.

(3.) LEARNED counsel, appearing for the petitioners, vehemently raised a point of law that Sambhar has not been enumerated in any Schedule of the Act. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioners is illegal. Perusal of Schedule III aforesaid, reveals that Sambhar (cerus unicolor) has been included in the Schedule III, at Item 16. Therefore, this argument is devoid of substance.