STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BAIDHAR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udala in 2(b) C.C. Case No. 13 of 1991 (Trial Case No. 536 of 1991) acquitting the respondents of the charge under section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.3.1991 some villagers of Patsanipur, Ambikadeipur, Dengam entered into the Simlipal Sanctuary for poaching wild animals. So, under the leadership of Forest Range Officer, Udala, a party comprising of other forest officials went to Jenabil forest area hill side of the sanctuary and way laid there. It was around 5.30 a.m. they saw a large number of packers coming down the hill. So, there was a chase from all sides when those patches rushed inside the dense forest at random. With much difficulty the respondents were only apprehended and they were found to be carrying a freshly cut left fore limb of a wild Boar by means of a bahangi resting on their shoulders. They were arrested at the spot and seizure of the materials carried by them was made along with two bows and four arrows. They were found to have killed a wild Boar from inside the sanctuary area by means of bows and arrows. Report being placed by the Forest Range Officer, the DRO -cum -Wild Life Warden, Baripada lodged the complaint. Thus, the respondents faced the trial.

(2.) PROSECUTION in order to establish their case has examined nine witnesses including the complainant P.W. 9 P.W. 5 is the Forester whereas P.Ws. 4 and 7 are the Forest Range Officers. The other forest guards who are the members of the raiding party have come to docks P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State submits that there was no reason for the Trial Court to discard the evidence of the official witnesses, who have no axe to grind against the respondents and when the respondents have been caught red handed at the spot inside the sanctuary area with a freshly cut limb of a wild Boar, they ought to have been convicted for the offence under section 51 of the Act. Thus, he urges that the order of acquittal needs interference.