STATE OF M P Vs. SUBKE BABOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal filed by the State under section 378 (1) and (3), Cr. P. C., is directed against the acquittal of the respondents for offence punishable under section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the TAct), by judgment dated 29-3-1982, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, in Criminal Case No. 1203 of 1979.

(2.) The respondents were charged for having illegally killed two tigers on 21/22-3-1978 by administering poison and deskinned them which was punishable under section 51 of the Act. The prosecution case, in brief, was that the appellants had mixed aldrin into the water for drinking by animals which resulted in death of two tigers. Thereafter, they took away those tigers and deskinned them. On receiving this information, the Ranger Officer Hanslal informed the police authorities. Later on, the tiger skin, nails and meat were seized from some of the respondents.

(3.) During the trial, Birashankar (P.W. 1) stated that the police did not interrogate the respondents in his presence. He also denied that anything was seized in his presence. According to him, he was called at the police-station where he saw tiger skin etc. He did not know who had brought the tiger skin etc. in the police-station. He also denied memorandums (Exs. P-i to P-4) having been made in his presence though he admitted his signatures on the memorandums and seizure memos. The witness was, therefore, declared hostile and was permitted to be cross examined. He stated that it was true that tiger skin was handed over to the police authorities by Kunjam Boda in his presence. Kunjam Boda was originally joined as a party to this appeal, but was deleted by Courts order dated 3-12-1982 as he had died. He denied that the bottle of aldrin was seized in his presence. In cross-examination, on behalf of the respondents, he, however, admitted that all memorandums and seizure-memos were written in the police-station, and every seized article was kept in the station from before. Evidence of this person, therefore, helps the prosecution to some extent in examination-in-chief but helps the defence in cross-examination. The manner in which he has shifted his statements, makes him thoroughly an unreliable witness. Paretlal (P.W. 2) also denied that any of the respondents was interrogated in his presence. He further denied any seizure from the respondents. Inspite of it, he accepted his signatures on memorandums (Exs. P-2 to P-4) and seizure-memos (Exs. P-6 to P-12). This witness was also declared hostile and cross-examined. In cross-examination, he admitted that the tiger skin was seized in his presence and he had signed the seizure-memo. He also admitted that the respondents were his relations and belong to the village. He admitted that the memorandums and seizure memos were written in the Thana. Evidence of this witness is also not sufficient to hold that the respondents had given statements leading to discovery of seized articles. Dr. A. S. Baghel (P.W. 3) does not support the prosecution, as in cross-examination, he is not able to say how much of aldrin was sufficient to kill a tiger. He also did not know how much aldrin was found in the stomach of tigresses. According to him, aldrin is an agricultural insecticide easily available in the market. Except for these, there is no other witness to connect the respondents with the crime. The aforesaid evidence, however, does not indicate that the respondents had either mixed aldrin or had given any statement leading to recovery at their instance. The evidence being insufficient, no fault can be found with the acquittal of the respondents.