Delhi District Court
Wild Life vs Oma on 20 February, 2020
CC No. 519796/2016
Wild Life Vs Oma
IN THE COURT OF VIPLAV DABAS ACMM (SPECIAL ACTS), CENRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI
Case No. 519796/2016
Wild Life Vs Oma
Date of Institution of case : 21.12.2015
Date of Judgment : 20.02.2020
JUDGMENT:
a) Date of offence : 26.10.2015
b) Offence complained of : U/s 51 of the Wild Life
(Protection) for contravention of
Section 9, 49, 49B(1) read with
Section 57 of Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972.
c) Name of Accused, his : Oma
parentage & residence W/o Sh. Mahipal
R/o Hindu Nagar, City Kotwali,
Eta, U.P.
d) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
e) Final order : Acquitted
Page No.1/23
CC No. 519796/2016
Wild Life Vs Oma
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. In the present case, accused Oma was put to the trial for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) for contravention of Section 49, 49B(1) read with Section 57 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 on the allegations that on the intervening night of 26.10.2015 and 27.10.2015 at about 2:55 a.m at IN Gate, ISBT, Anand Vihar, Delhi accused Oma was found in possession of 123 Soft Shelled turtles specified in Schedule I of Wild Life (Protection) Act which she were keeping in six bags without having any licence or any authority to keep the same & thus accused committed an offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) for contravention of Section 9, 49, 49B(1) read with Section 57 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The present complaint was filed before the Court after conclusion of the investigation in the FIR registering at police station Madhu Vihar.
2. The Court took the cognizance of the alleged offences on filing of complaint and accused was summoned. Accused appeared in person and copies of complaint alongwith other documents were supplied to her and matter was fixed for precharge evidence.
3. In the precharge evidence, the complainant department brought CW1 Sh. Harshad Solanki, Rescue Coordinator, Wild Life SOS, PW2 SI Vijay Kumar, PW3 W Ct. Neelam, PW4 HC Narender, PW5 Paramvir Page No.2/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma Singh Wild Life Inspector and PW6 Lokesh, Wild Life Rescue Coordinator in the present case.
4. CW1 Sh. Harshad Solanki, Rescue Coordinator deposed that in the year 2015, he was working as Rescue Coordinator in SOS NGO, that he does not remember the exact date but one day, he went to Agra to deposit the turtles as instructed by his Senior and that he deposited the turtles at ABRF i.e Agra Bear Rescue Facility and except this he did nothing in this case.
The witness was shown the photographs of the turtles which are already on record and the witness correctly identified the same which are Mark X. During cross examination the witness deposed that around 123 turtles were deposited by him, that he does not have any documents with regards to same as it was all run by their NGO, that he does not remember the name of his senior at whose instruction, he has deposited the turtles at ABRF, that the photographs of the turtles were not taken in his presence and that the said instruction was oral. The witness denied the suggestion that he never deposited any turtles as deposed in his examination in chief.
5. PW2 SI Vijay Kumar deposed that on 27.10.2015, HC Narender brought one lady at PP Anand Vihar as he found her standing at road Page No.3/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma with Six bags in suspicious condition, that HC Narender investigated about her name which was disclosed as Uma (present in the Court and correctly identified), that HC Narender checked all the six bags at the spot and found that it was containing tortoises that is why he brought her at PP Anand Vihar, that he was present at the police post at that time and he informed him about this case, that as tortoises were involved so he informed Wild Life Inspector Sh. Paramvir Singh on his mobile no. 9871963535, that he came at the police post and checked all the six bags and on counting number of tortoises came as 123, that he (Parmvir Singh) inspected the tortoises and made an identification memo which is marked A, that all these 123 tortoises were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A, that the bags were given serial number from A1 to A6, that he / PW2 prepared the rukka which is Ex. PW2/B, that the rukka was handed over to HC Narender for registration of FIR, that he went to police station Madhu Vihar and got the FIR registered, that he returned at the police post Anand Vihar and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him, that copy of FIR is marked B, personal search of accused Uma was conducted by women Ct. Neelam who was present at the police post vide personal search memo Ex. PW2/C bearing his signature at point A, that accused Uma was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D, that he recorded disclosure statement Ex.PW2/E and that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW2/F. The witness correctly identified the photographs of the tortoises Page No.4/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma which were taken at the time of their release in their natural habitat which are marked as Mark X. This witness was not cross examined and right to cross examine was reserved for post charge evidence stage.
6. PW3 W Ct. Neelam proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused Ex. PW2/D and PW2/C. During cross examination conducted on behalf of accused, the witness deposed that she does not remember the time when accused was arrested, that she does not remember whether IO has given any information regarding arrest to the family of the accused, that she does not remember the time of medical examination of the accused and that she does not remember how much time was taken in going and coming to the PP Anand Vihar after conduction of medical examination. The witness denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicatesd in this case, that the document prepared by IO regarding arrest were already signed by the accused Oma under pressure and coercion and that she was not present at the spot at the time of arrest of the accused.
7. PW4 HC Narender deposed that on 27.10.2015 he was on patrolling duty with SI Vijay Kumar in the area of ISBT Out Gate where he noticed a lady standing there and carrying six suspicious bags, that the thing which she kept inside the bags was seen slightly moving, that Page No.5/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma he checked the bags and found that it was containing turtles, that the matter was investigated as the tortoises were involved in the case so wildlife officials have been informed, that Sh. Paramvir Singh WLI came there and he counted the tortoises and prepared its documents, that IO SI Vijay prepared the tehreer and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR, that he accordingly went to the PS Madhu Vihar and got the FIR registered, that he returned and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Vijay, that tortoise were seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/A and that disclosure statement of accused was recorded which is Ex. PW2/E. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the Court.
The witness correctly identified the tortoises as shown in the photographs which are marked as Mark X. This witness was not cross examined and right to cross examine was reserved for post charge evidence stage.
8. PW5 Sh. Paramvir Singh, Wild Life Inspector deposed that on 27.10.2015 he received a telephonic call from SI Vijay Kumar intimating that he had detained a women with six bags of turtles and he wanted me to identify the same, that he rushed to police post IBST Anand Vihar and found a six bags containing 123 turtles from the possession of accused, that he prepared an identification memo Ex. PW5/A, that he received documents of this case from SI Vijay Kumar on 16.11.2015 and on the Page No.6/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma basis of these documents he filed a complaint as per rule 49 of Wild Life Protection Rules, 1973 which is Ex. CW5/B. The witness correctly identified the photographs of the tortoises which were taken at the time of their releasing in their natural habitat which are marked as Mark X. This witness was not cross examined and right to cross examine was reserved for post charge evidence stage.
9. PW6 Sh. Lokesh, Wild Life Rescue Coordinator deposed that on 27.10.2015, they receieved a PCR call at SOS and in pursuance of this, he alongwith Rajbir Singh and Suraj went to police post Anand Vihar where they met IO SI Vijay Kumar and found that he had six bags containing 123 turtles, that he handed over the same to them with direction to bring the same in the Court on the next day, that on 28.10.2015, he appeared in the Hon'ble Court alongwith the case property i.e turtles, that after attending the Court he went to SOS and handed over the custody of turtles to Sh. Harshad Solanki and also informed him about the direction of the Court regarding release of the same in their natural habitat at Wild Life Sanctuary, Keetam Jheel, Agra.
This witness was not cross examined and right to cross examine was reserved for post charge evidence stage.
10. Thereafter on 31.07.2018, the precharge evidence was closed by Page No.7/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma the Ld. Predecessor Court and matter was fixed for arguments on the charge.
11. Vide order on charge dated 31.07.2018, charge was framed against accused for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) for contravention of Section 9,49, 49B(1) read with Section 57 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was listed for post charge evidence.
12. In the post charge evidence, the witnesses PW1 W Ct. Neelam, PW4 HC Narender, PW5 Paramvir Singh, PW6 Lokesh Wild Life Rescue Coordinator, CW1 Harshad Solanki and CW2 SI Vijay Kumar from the complainant department were recalled.
13. CW1 W Ct. Neelam deposed during the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused that she does not remember the exact date of arrest, that she has no knowledge whether the information of arrest was supplied to the family members of the accused by the IO and that she took the accused for medical examination, however, she does not remember the duration for which she remained in the hospital for examination. The witness denied the suggestion that she had signed the blank arrest memo which was later on filled by the IO and that she never assisted the IO in arresting the accused.
Page No.8/23 CC No. 519796/2016Wild Life Vs Oma
14. CW1 Sh. Harshad Solanki adopted his previously recorded examination in chief recorded on 25.11.2016 in his post charge evidence.
During cross examination conducted on behalf of accused, the witness deposed that total 123 Turtles were deposited by him at ABRF i.e Agra Bear Rescue Facility, that he had obtained the receipt from the Wild Life SOS, D210, Defence Colony, New Delhi, however, he does not remember the said DD number, that he has no knowledge whether the said DD was placed on record or even obtained from the Wild Life SOS, that the said turtles were taken to Agra in one Ambulance, that he does not remember the registration number of the said ambulance and that he does not exactly remember the date on which he had gone to Agra. The witness denied the suggestion that he never visited Agra and that is why he does not remember the registration number of ambulance or the DD number.
15. CW2 Sh. Vijay Kumar adopted his precharge examination in chief recorded on 25.09.2017 in his post charge evidence.
During cross examination conducted on behalf of accused, the witness deposed that on the date of recovery, he was posted as Chowki Incharge at ISBT Anand Vihar, that at the time of recovery, he was patrolling in the area with HC Narender, that he had made departure entry before leaving for patrolling duty in the area, that he does not Page No.9/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma remember the departure entry, however, the same was placed on record, that the place of recovery was a public place, that public persons were present at the spot at the time of alleged recovery, that he did not join the public persons in the recovery proceedings, that he made efforts to join the public persons in the recovery proceedings but they left the spot by making excuses, that he did not note down the name and address of the public persons, that the said public persons left without disclosing their names and addresses and that no notice was issued to the public persons for not joining the recovery proceedings.
16. PW4 HC Narender deposed in his cross examination at post charge evidence that he was on patrolling duty on a bike, that duty officer has made departure entry when he left for night duty (patrolling duty), that his duty hours were from 8:00 p.m to 8:00 a.m, that the six bags in which alleged turtles were kept were jute sacks, that he was relieved from the investigation finally at 4:00 p.m, that at the place of incident, CCTV Cameras were not installed, that in his presence no one from the IBST joined the investigation, that he does not have knowledge whether IO has seized any bus ticket etc from the accused, that wild life officials came at the police post ISBT and in his presence no photographs of the place of incident were taken, that IO might have taken the same in his absence, that he returned at the spot after registration of the FIR and that the disclosure statement was recorded at the PP ISBT by SI Vijay Page No.10/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma Kumar.
17. PW5 Sh. Paramvir Singh deposed in his cross examination at post charge stage that when he received the information regarding this case, that he did not inform his senior officer regarding his departure, that he did not make any entry in any document / record at his office regarding this case and that he did not click any photographs at the place of the incident.
18. PW6 Sh. Lokesh Wild Life Coordinator denied the suggsestion in his cross examination at post charge stage he has not received any turtle for releasing the same.
19. Thereafter, post charge evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to the accused who stated that she is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case and that she was never found in possession of turtles and the same were planted upon her. The accused did not choose to lead defence evidence.
20. At the time of final arguments it is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and all the ingredients of relevant section are completed. In reply to this it is Page No.11/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma argued on behalf of accused that she has been falsely implicated in the present case which is evident from the non joinder of the public witnesses, that nothing was recovered from her possession and that the alleged recovery has been planted upon the accused at the police station.
21. This Court heard the Ld. APP for the state as well the defence counsel.
22. The manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc was stated to be conducted on the spot at the time of alleged recovery of the 123 turtles and arrest of the accused makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. Record shows that the accused was allegedly apprehended when the PW/ CW2 SI Vijay Kumar and PW/ CW4 HC Narender were on patrolling duty. Perusal of the testimony of PW/CW2 recorded at the time of precharge evidence reveals that he simply stated that on 27.10.2015 HC Narender / PW4 who was on patrolling duty at Out Gate Anand Vihar ISBT brought one lady at PP Anand Vihar as he found her standing at the road with six bags in suspicious condition. It means that PW4 was alone during the patrolling duty alone and he found the accused at the spot and met PW2 at the police post. Record shows that PW4 HC Narender stated in his testimony recorded at the precharge evidence stage that he was on patrolling duty with SI Vijay Kumar on 27.10.2015. This contradiction in the testimony of CW2 and CW4 Page No.12/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma regarding the fact that they both were on patrolling duty together makes their presence on the spot highly doubtful which further creates grave doubt upon the factum of apprehension of the accused alongwith 123 turtles at the spot by the PW2 and PW4 while on patrolling duty.
23. It is observed from the testimony of PW2 and PW4 that the place of apprehension of the accused was a public place being out gate of ISBT Anand Vihar and public persons were present at the spot of recovery but still the public persons were not joined in the recovery proceedings. It is further evident from the testimony of CW2 and CW4 that he stated that he made efforts to join the public persons in the recovery proceedings but they left the spot by making excuses. He further admitted that he did not note down the name and address of the public persons as they left without disclosing their names and addresses and no notice was issued to the public persons for not joining the recovery proceedings. The aforesaid testimony shows that no bonafide efforts were made by PW2 to either extract the names and addresses of the public persons who refused to join the recovery proceedings and to serve notice upon them for their said refusal for initiating prosecution as would have been done in usual circumstances by police official. The fact that the public persons left the spot by making excuses does not appear reasonable justification as being police officials the PW2 and PW4 were having authority of law to cause the public persons to disclose their names and addresses and in Page No.13/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma case the police officials failed to exercise the authority of law as was expected out of them, the only inference which can be drawn is that either they were not present at the spot which further implies that the accused was not apprehended at the spot alongwith alleged 123 turtles or that they acted with malafides.
24. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation in a criminal cases, reliance may be placed on the following case laws: In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under: "18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could Page No.14/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
In case law Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi reported as DHC 1992 CRI LJ 55 it is observed as under: "that the recovery is proved by three police officials who have differed on who snatched the Kirpan from the petitioner and at what time. The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola".
25. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher Courts, the unexplained omissions / failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses and serve notice upon them for refusal Page No.15/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and are fatal to the prosecution version which establishes the defence version that there is total false implication of the accused in the present case and that the recovery was planted upon the accused.
26. Perusal of the testimony of CW1 / W Ct. Neelam, the witness of the factum of arrest of the accused, reveals that during the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused she deposed that she does not remember the exact date of arrest, that she has no knowledge whether the information of arrest was supplied to the family members of the accused by the IO and that she took the accused for medical examination, however, she does not remember the duration for which she remained in the hospital for examination. The aforesaid testimony of CW1 shows that prosecution failed to establish the chain of proceedings which allegedly took place at and after the apprehension of the accused from the spot with turtles. This is again a material omission which makes the prosecution version of recovery of alleged 123 turtles from the possession of the accused, highly suspicious.
27. Record further shows that PW5 Sh. Paramvir Singh who prepared the identification memo Ex. PW5/A at the police post ISBT stated in his cross examination conducted at the post charge stage that it was holiday when he received the information regarding this case, that he did not Page No.16/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma inform his senior officer regarding his departure, that he did not make any entry in any document / record at his office regarding this case and that he did not click any photographs at the place of the incident. It is clear that he did not even bother to lodge any departure entry on the said date or even on the next working day. This testimony shows that there is no material available suggesting the presence of the PW5 at the spot as he neither made any entry qua his visiting the spot nor clicked photographs of the place of the incident as well as that of the turtles on the spot. These omissions again indicate that chances of false implication of the accused can not be ruled out.
28. It is also pertinent to mention that prosecution witnesses have failed to prove any documentary evidence or the DD entries to show that police officials were on patrolling duty in the area from where the alleged recovery was effected. Record shows that PW4 HC Narender and PW2 SI Vijay Kumar did not depose anything specific about the number of such DD entry made prior to leaving the police station for patrolling nor the prosecution proved any such DD entry on record. This failure again creates grave doubt upon the presence of the said PWs at the place of recovery while patrolling in the area.
Regarding the value of making DD entry it is worth mentioning that as per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules it is necessary to record DD Entry of arrival and departure of the police official. Chapter Page No.17/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is reproduced as under : " 22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered : (C)The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
Note : The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as Rattan Lal V/s State, 19872 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court "Wherein it has been observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the court will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
Page No.18/23 CC No. 519796/2016Wild Life Vs Oma In the present case, the above said provision appears to have not been complied with by prosecution. These omissions on the part of the prosecution create doubt on the version that the accused was apprehended with the alleged 123 turtles at the spot by the said PWs.
29. Furthermore, the testimony of PW2 and PW3, record and the perusal of rukka Ex. PW2/B shows that the seizure memo of six bags containing alleged 123 turtles Ex. PW2/A were prepared prior to the dispatch of the Rukka and registration of the FIR. However, perusal of the said documents clearly shows that the FIR number and other particulars of the present case are mentioned on the said documents. No explanation has come from the prosecution to justify as to how the FIR number surfaced on those documents which were prepared prior to the registration of the case which being a material omission substantiates the defence version that the alleged recovery was planted at the police station and nothing was recovered from the spot from the possession of the accused. This fact casts a doubt upon the testimony of PWs and entire prosecution version because if the said document was prepared prior to the registration of the present case, then how the FIR number as well as other particulars of the present case surfaced on the said document. At this stage, reference can also be made of a case titled as Pawan Kumar Vs Delhi Admn. 1987 CC Cases 585 Delhi wherein Page No.19/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that the mention of FIR number on recovery memo etc which were prepared prior to lodging the FIR creates doubt and benefit should go to the accused.
30. Perusal of the testimony of CW1 Sh. Harshad Solanki who was working as rescue coordinator in SOS NGO shows that he deposed that he went to Agra to deposit the turtles at ABRF, Agra, however, he failed to bring on record any DD entry vide which he left his office for Agra. He even failed to bring on record the receipt vide which he had deposited the said turtles at ABRF Agra. Thus, his testimony also fails to inspire the confidence in respect of visiting Agra and the factum of depositing the turtles, if any, as well as the same turtles, which were actually seized from the possession of the accused. It shows that the possibility of tampering of the case property can not be ruled out which thus creates doubt on the factum of recovery of the alleged turtles from the possession of the accused on the spot.
31. Perusal of testimony of PW6 Sh. Lokesh Wild Life Rescue Coordinator reveals that on the date of recovery he also visited the spot where the case property i.e six bags containing 123 turtles were handed over to him by IO with instruction that the same shall be produced before the Court on the next date. It is very surprising to see that no handing over memo was prepared by the IO in this regard. Further the Page No.20/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma testimony of PW6 reflects that he subsequently handed over the case property to Sh. Harshad Solanki after reaching the SOS office but again no entry was made by him in this respect. His complete testimony was not supported by any document which can inspire the confidence to this Court about such handing over of case property from one person to another or even with respect to the recovery. These omissions again makes the prosecution version of recovery of alleged turtles in alleged manner highly doubtful.
32. Being guided by above said analysis of testimonies, it can be said that the search, seizure and recovery made by the above said police officials was in complete violation of the well established principles of law and the same can be said to be illegal which create grave doubts on the prosecution's version of recovery of alleged 123 turtles from the possession of the accused from the spot and substantiates the defence version that the alleged recovery was planted upon the accused and that entire proceedings were recorded at the police station and not on the spot.
33. In the present facts and circumstances, it is pertinent to mention the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an Page No.21/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion and judgments, this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its version beyond Page No.22/23 CC No. 519796/2016 Wild Life Vs Oma reasonable doubts and accused has been able to raise a probable defence creating doubt about the existence or veracity of the prosecution version which renders the same untrustworthy. Accordingly, accused Oma W/o Sh. Mahipal is acquitted of the charge leveled against her. Bail bond stands cancelled and Surety be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any. Case property be confiscated to State and be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal, if not already destroyed. Fresh bail bond and surety bond furnished and accepted in compliance of Section 437 A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (VIPLAV DABAS) today i.e on 20.02.2020 ACMM (SPECIAL ACTS)/CENTRAL:DELHI 20.02.2020 Page No.23/23