MOHAMMAD SHARIF Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners along with three other persons-Hakim Ali, Unis Ali and Gulam Rasool were tried under S. 447, IPC and S. 9/51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangria. The petitioners were convicted for both the above offences and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to undergo two months R.I. respectively. Other three accused persons were acquitted. The 12 bore gun of petitioner Mohd. Sharif was also ordered to be confiscated under S. 51(2) of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and cancelled the licence in his name. The petitioners preferred an appeal which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh Camp Sangria vide judgment dt. 6-7-87. Aggrieved by these judgments, the petitioners have now preferred this revision petition.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 30-6-81 at about 1.30 p.m., Devendra, Maniram and Manfool were talking in the field Chak 5 MJD Mauja Nathwana. The petitioners with three associates came in a tractor with two hunting dogs chasing 'Nilgays and shot down three Nilgays. The petitioners were caught on the spot but other three fled away. The petitioners were produced in Police Station, Sangaria and report was lodged by one Shri Devendra Singh. A criminal case was registered against the petitioners and after challan, trial took place for the charges under S. 447, IPC and S. 9/51 of Wild Life (Protection} Act, 1972. The prosecution examined four witnesses viz. Maniram PW 1, Manfool PW 2, Devendra Singh PW 3 and Station House Officer, Shri Gopal Ram PW 4. After hearing the arguments and considering the evidence on record, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was passed as stated above.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the statements of witnesses on record. It is argued that there are glaring and material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and their testimony is completely unreliable. The learned lower Court has committed an error in not considering and appreciating the material contradictions. It is not established from the statements of the prosecution witnesses that the petitioners fired shots and killed three Nilgays. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the trial Court as well as appellate Court have considered the evidence and there are no reasonable grounds to interfere with the concurrent finding. Ordinarily, this court do not indulge in re-appraisal of the evidence while exercising the powers under S. 397, Cr. P.C. for considering the revision petition. But in the instant case, on perusing the statements of prosecution witnesses, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are glaring and material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and their statements are not reliable about the alleged incident. Maniram, Manfool and Devendra do not state that the petitioners fired shots and killed Nilgays. Devendra states that two persons fired the shots he does not know the petitioner's name but they were sitting on the tractor and other three persons were on foot who were surrounding the Nilgays and ran away. Maniram on the other hand says that Mohd. Sharif was driving the tractor and other four persons were sitting on it, he does not say that three persons were on foot and running surrounding the Nilgay. He further states that three persons fired and killed three Nilgays. He further states that out of them two persons were caught and were brought to Police Station which were the petitioners Mohd. Sharif and Ahmed Din. But in the cross-examination he changes the version by saying that they did not bring two persons to Police Station and it was police who caught them and brought to Police Station. Manfool PW 2 has also stated in cross-examination that police had caught the petitioners and they were not brought by them to Police Station. This witness also do not clearly state that the petitioners had fired the shots. It has not been possible for the prosecution to explain material contradictions. Therefore the very material aspect of the incident that two persons were caught on the spot and were brought to Police Station is not established by the prosecution evidence which renders the prosecution case highly doubtful that whether the petitioners fired the shots and killed Nilgays were caught by the witnesses on the spot. The post-mortem reports Ex.P-1 and 2 do not show cause of death. The bullet was taken out from the body but at the same time there were serious cut wounds on the body by sharpedged weapon. If the petitioners fired shot killing two Nilgays and were caught on the spot then it is not established that how cut wounds were found inflicted by sharp-edged weapon. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that after killing the animal, the accused or other associates must have cut the parts of the body by sharp-edged weapon but this explanation is not found acceptable as none of the prosecution witnesses have stated so in their statements.