HARMADEO URAON @ DHARMADRA URAON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of conviction of the appellants by Shri RK. Sukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Rohtas at Sasaram vide judgment dated 17.12.1997 passed in Forest Case No. F21/84/Tr. No. 725/1987 whereby each of the appellants has been convicted under Sec. 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to be as the "Act") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, the appellants preferred Cr. Appeal No. 123 of 1997 which was heard by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram and vide his judgment dated 6.9.1999 the appeal was dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence as passed against the petitioners were affirmed. After the confirmation of the conviction and the sentence passed by the Lower Appellate Court as above the petitioners preferred this revision before this court.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 16.5.1984 Rambrikch Sah, Sarpanch gave a written information before the Banpal, Rehla that the petitioners alongwith accused Sheonandan Uraon and Haribansh Uraon had killed a tiger on 15.5.1984 at 8 P.M. in Rehla protected forest area and they were removing the hide of the killed tiger. On this information the Forest Officer constituted a raiding party on 23.5.1984 and a search was conducted and as a result of search of that day (23.5.1984) at about 7:30 P.M. the appellants alongwith co -accused Sheonandan Uraon and Krishna Uraon who died during trial and Haribansh Uraon (who absconded during trial) were found to have assembled at a place and the bones of the killed tiger was there and they were digging a ditch for burying the bones. The bones alongwith one spade were seized and seizure list was also prepared. The bones were proved as material exhibit during trial. That day (23.5.1984) at about 8 P.M. the house of the Sheonandan Uroan (who died during trial) was also searched and the hide of the killed tiger was recovered from his house. It was also the case of the prosecution that accused persons confessed that accused Sheonandan Uraon had killed the tiger with a gun and that other accused had assisted in the killing.

(3.) AS many as six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. They deposed in detail about recovery of the hide and bones of the killed tiger and apprehension of the appellant and other accused while they were digging a ditch for burying the bones of the killed tiger. On perusal of the evidence, I do not find any infirmity or discrepancy in the evidence of witnesses to discredit their testimony. The prosecution has proved the charge beyond the shadows of doubt.