Bombay High Court
Smt. Nilima Raghunath Malode vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 2 May, 2016
Author: Z.A.Haq
Bench: Z.A.Haq
Judgment 1 wp251.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 251 OF 2016
State of Maharashtra (Forest Department),
through Assistant Conservator of Forests,
Dhakna, Gugamal Wildlife Division,
Melghat Tiger Project, Paratwada,
District : Amravati.
ig .... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
Bhajan son of Hotel Durve (Pawar), aged
about 22 years, Occupation : Nil, Resident
of Biruhali Police Station : Rithi, Tahsil and
District : Katni, Madhya Pradesh.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri K.N.Shukul, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms Swapna S. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : MAY 02, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:37:51 :::Judgment 2 wp251.16.odt
3. The State of Maharashtra (Forest Department) has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court suspending the execution of the sentence inflicted on the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 40(1)(2), 39(3), 44(1)(2), 49(B), 52 r/w Section 51(1)(D) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
4. The learned Magistrate has convicted the appellant for the above referred offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the term as stated in the judgment.
5. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded that the respondent belongs to Nomadic Tribe and migrates from one place to another for his livelihood and the respondent is not having knowledge of Marathi language and the learned Magistrate has not taken any efforts to make the respondent-
accused understand the alleged statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Sessions Judge has further recorded that nothing is recovered from the accused and the recovery is from a public place. It is the submission of advocates of both the parties that there is no recovery as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and perhaps the reference is to the alleged place of transaction where the skin of tiger is given to the purchaser and the money is taken from the purchaser.
::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:37:51 :::Judgment 3 wp251.16.odt
6. Shri K.N. Shukul, advocate submits that the confessional statement of the respondent is recorded as per Section 50(8) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and it is in Hindi. Ms. S.S. Jadhav, advocate has argued that in addition to the above referred statement, statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has been recorded by the Investigating Officer and it is in Marathi.
7. Be that as it may, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has not adverted to the relevant material on record. Furthermore, the gravity of the crime is also not properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge.
Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.
8. Hence, the following order :
The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2016 on application (Ex.5) on 15th March, 2016 is set aside.
The respondent is granted liberty to move the Sessions Court for grant of early hearing of the appeal.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE RRaut..::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:37:51 :::