Delhi District Court
Wild Life vs . Meetu Singh on 22 October, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON:
ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Spl. Acts): CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CC No. 121/1 (old number)
Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh
JUDGMENT
(a) New CC No. : 514359/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence 04.05.2012
(c) Name of complainant : Sh. R.R. Meena, Wild Life
Inspector, Delhi
(d) Name, parentage and residence: Meetu Singh
S/o Sh. Bhagmal
R/o Village Balsa, P.O. Kansa Koti,
Tehsil & P.S. Rohru,
District Simla, Himachal Pradesh.
(e) Offences complained of/ proved: U/s 49 and 49(B)(1) of the Wild
Life(Protection) Act, 1972
punishable U/s 51 of the
said Act.
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
(g) Final order : Accused Meetu Singh
Convicted for the contravention of
section 49
punishable U/s 51 of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972.
(h) Date of such order : 22.10.2016
Date of institution : 24.09.2013
Arguments heard/order reserved : 15.10.2016
Date of Judgment : 22.10.2016
Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 1 of 14
2
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. The complainant Sh. R.R. Meena, WLI filed the present complaint u/s 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in short the "Act" punishable u/s 51 of the Act against the accused Meetu Singh for recovery of three Leopard skins.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that on 04.05.2012, an information was received by Ct. Rampal from an informer regarding illegal trade of wild animal skins. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the information was shared with the inspector Satya Prakash who informed to senior officers and same was marked to him for necessary action and a raiding team was organised by inspector Satya Prakash and he briefed the matter to the raiding party. Further as per complaint's story, at about 5:45 pm, the raiding team reached Karnal bypass road in private vehicle and at that time one person with plastic bag was going to the side of Burari and at indication of informer, the said person was apprehended by H.C. Jagbir Singh and Ct. Ramphal. Further as per complainant's story, on search of his plastic bag, three uncured leopard skins were found in his possession and on enquiry the person disclosed his name and address as Meetu Singh S/o Sh. Bhagmal R/o village Balsa P.O. Kansa Koti, Tehsil & P.S. Rohru, District Simla, Himachal Pradesh. Further, he was asked to produce any legal source of procurement or any document or any licence to possess the Leopard skins, but he failed to do so. Further, as per prosecution story, the said leopard skins were seized vide seizure memo dated 04.05.2012.
3. Further, it is stated in the complaint that on 05.05.2012, the Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 2 of 14 3 accused alongwith the case property with the seal of SPV was produced before the Court and as per order of the Court, the accused was sent to Judicial Custody and the case property was sent to Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun for expert opinion. Accordingly, the scientific analysis report was received bearing opinion that all three skins are of leopard (Panthera pardus) vide report dated 03.09.2012. It is further stated in the complaint that leopard is a specified animal and listed under Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and thus the accused has contravened the provisions of Section 39, 40(2) and 49 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 which is punishable U/s 51 of the said Act.
4. After cognizance of the offence was taken, accused was summoned for his appearance. Copy of complaint and other documents were supplied to him.
5. In order to substantiate the allegations, the complainant examined five witnesses in precharge evidence.
6. PW1 is Inspector Satya Prakash. He has deposed that on 04.05.2012, he was posted in SIT Section of Crime Branch at Rohini and on that day he received information that one person from Himachal Pradesh named Mitu having leopard skin in his possession would come to Karnal bypass at about 6.00/7.00 pm. He has further deposed that after satisfying himself, he shared the information to Addl. DCP who had directed him to take legal action. He has further deposed that at about 5.30 pm, he alongwith secret informer, ASI Baljit, ASI Ramesh, HC Jitender, HC Jagbir, Ct. Sunil, Ct. Amit,Ct. Pradeep, Ct. Ram Pal and CT. Jagbir left their crime branch office in a private vehicle after making Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 3 of 14 4 departure entry and reached Karnal bypass and asked 45 passerby to join the raiding party but none of them agreed. He has further deposed that at about 6.30 pm, the secret information pointed out towards accused Mitu Singh who was having a white color plastic bag in his hand and moving towards Burari. He has further deposed that HC Jagbir and Ct. Ram Pal overpowered accused Mitu Singh. He has further deposed that thereafter, the plastic katta which was in possession of the accused was put on the ground and was checked which was found containing three leopard skin wrapped in plastic sheet. He has further deposed that the leopard skin was measured and given serial no. A,B and C. He has further deposed that the measurement was recorded from head to tail and from all four legs and waist. He has further deposed that the leopard skins were wrapped in three separate plastic sheet and the same was sealed with his seal SPV. He has further deposed that the case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. CW1/A which bears his sign at point A. He has further deposed that thereafter, he prepared rukka which is Ex. CW1/B and handed it over to HC Jagbir for registration of case. He has further deposed that he inspected the site and prepared site plan Ex. CW1/C. He has further deposed that HC Jagbir came back at the spot and after getting the case registered, handed over original rukka and copy of FIR MarkA2, to him. He has further deposed that accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex. CW1/D was recorded and thereafter accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. CW1/E and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. CW1/F. He has further deposed that all the exhibits bear his signatures at point A and that of accused at point B. He has further deposed that an application was moved U/s 50(4) Ex. CW1/G and as per directions of the Court, case property was deposited with Wildlife Institute, Dehradun for expert Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 4 of 14 5 opinion, He has further deposed that on 28.05.2012, he had gone outstation in some other case and the file was handed over to ASI Ramesh for further investigation. He correctly identified the case property i.e. three leapord skins in the Court which are Ex. P1 to P3, polythene pannies which are Ex. P4 to P6 and white plastic katta containing all this case property as Ex. P7.
7. CW2 is HC Jagbir Singh. He has deposed on the lines of CW1 Inspector Satya Prakash. He has deposed about the investigation conducted by the raiding team.
8. CW3 is Sh. C.P. Sharma, Senior Technical Officer from Wildlife Forensic Cell, Wild life Institute, Chandrabani, Dehradun. He has deposed that on 11.05.2012, he has received a letter from additional DCP crime, Delhi police regarding case FIR No. 121/12, accompanying a sealed white bag tied with cloth rope and duly sealed. He has further deposed that he opened the sealed bag and found three skins wrapped in a polythene bag and marked all the three skins as F2204/13, F2204/23 and F2204/3 3 respectively. He has further deposed that he analysed the skins based on morphological features and microscopic hair analysis and compared the findings with that of reference material. He has further deposed that based on the blotching pattern on the skin and their characteristics and after comparison with reference material it was concluded that all the three skins are of leopard (Panthera pardus). He has further deposed that after completing the analysis, he prepared the analysis report which is Ex. CW 3/A which bears his signatures at point A. He has further deposed that he then sealed the case property and the analysis report and handed over the same to the police.
Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 5 of 14 6
9. CW4 is Sh. R.R. Meena who is Wildlife Inspector in the office of Chief Wildlife Warden GNCT of Delhi. He has deposed that he was working in the office of CWLW Delhi and authorized to file a complaint under Rule 49 of Wildlife Protection Act 1973. He has further deposed that on 21.09.2012, he received a case file from constable Ram Pal PS Crime branch for necessary action under Wildlife Act. He has further deposed that after going through the case file, he has filed the present complaint U/s 55 of the Act, which is Ex. CW4/A which bears his signatures at point A.
10. CW5 is HC Rampal from Crime Branch. He too deposed on the lines of CW1 Inspector Satya Prakash and CW2 HC Jagbir Singh. He has deposed about the investigation conducted by the raiding team on 04.05.2012 and relied upon the documents exhibited by CW1 Inspector Satya Prakash.
11. After pre charge evidence, a charge was framed against accused Meetu Singh on 10.10.2014 Under Sections 49 and 49B(1) of the Act punishable U/s 51 of the Act, on the allegations that accused Meetu Singh was found in possession of three leopard skins (uncured) and he failed to show any valid licence or document for keeping the said leopard skin and that skin is specified in Schedule1 of Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
12. In post charge evidence, complainant has examined five witnesses in support of its case and all the witnesses were cross examined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel.
Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 6 of 14 7
13. After completion of the post charge evidence, statement of accused Meetu Singh was recorded u/s 313 r/w 281 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.). Accused denied all the allegations and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case and further submitted that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
14. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions in advance on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the relevant records and also the relevant provisions of the Act. Relevant provisions of Section 39/ 49/ 49B(1) of the Act to reproduce for ready reference....
39. Wild Animals, etc. to be Government property:
(1) Every
(a) Wild animal, other than vermin, which is hunted u/s 11 or subsection (1) of section 29 or subsection (6) of section 35 or kept or [bred in captivity or hunted] in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder or found dead, or killed by mistake; and
(b) animal article, trophy or uncured trophy or meat derived from any wild animal referred to in clause (a) in respect of which any offence against this Act or any rule or order made thereunder has been committed;
[(c) ivory imported into India and an article made from such ivory in respect of which any offence against this Act or any rule or order made thereunder has been committed;
(d) vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of this Act,] shall be the property of the State Government, and , where such animal is Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 7 of 14 8 hunted in a sanctuary or National Park declared by the Central Government, such animal or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat [derived from such animal, or any vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool used in such hunting] shall be the property of the Central Government. (2) Any person who obtains, by any means, the possession of Government property, shall, within fortyeight hours from obtaining of such possession to the nearest police station or the authorised officer and shall, if so required,hand over such property to the officerincharge of such police station or such authorised officer, as the case may be. (3) No person shall, without the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or th e authorised officer
(a) acquire or keep in his possession, custody or control, or
(b) transfer to any person, whether by way of gift, sale or otherwise, or
(c) destroy or damage, such Government property.
49. Purchase of captive animal, etc, by a person other than a licensee. No person shall purchase, receive or acquire any captive animal, wild animal, other than vermin, or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived therefrom otherwise than from a dealer or from a person authorised to sell or otherwise transfer the same under this act. 49B(1). Prohibition of dealings in trophies, animal articles, etc. derived from scheduled animals - Subject to the other provisions of this section, on and after the specified date, no person shall,
(a) commence or carry on the business as (I) a manufacturer of, or dealer in scheduled animal articles; or [(ia) a dealer in ivory imported into India or articles made therefrom or a manufacturer of such articles; or] Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 8 of 14 9
(ii) a taxidermist with respect to any scheduled animals or any parts of such animals; or
(iii) a dealer in trophy or uncured trophy derived from any scheduled animal; or
(iv) a dealer in any captive animals being scheduled animals; or
(v) a dealer in meat derived from any scheduled animal; or
(b) cook or serve meat derived from any scheduled animal in any eating house.
Explanation.For the purposes of this subsection, "eatinghouse" has the same meaning as the Explanation below subsection (1) of section 44.
15. Ld. Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that all the witnesses of recovery examined by the complainant are police officials and in the absence of any public witnesses, their testimony alone should not be held sufficient for convicting the accused for the offences for which he has been charged with. Ld. Counsel for accused has further argued that complainant has not complied with the provision of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. and non compliance of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. is fatal to the prosecution. Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that seizure memo was prepared first of all and thereafter, rukka was prepared and then FIR was lodged, but, FIR number is mentioned on the seizure memo which shows that FIR was registered first and thereafter, all the proceedings were carried out and it creates doubt in the story of the prosecution. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that there are various contradictions in the deposition of prosecution witnesses and hence, complainant's story is doubtful. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also relied upon judgment titled as Makhan Singh Vs. State of Haryana: Crl. Appl. No. 682 of 2015 of Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 9 of 14 10 Hon'ble Apex Court and another judgment titled as Prithvipal Singh Vs. State: 56 of 1996 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
16. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the state has argued that all the complainant witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and complainant proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Ld. APP further argued that complainant has duly identified the case property.
17. Complainant has to prove that accused Meetu Singh was found in possession of three leopard skins (uncured) which he was having for the purpose of trade. As per defence counsel, all the recovery witnesses are official ones and no independent witness was joined in proceedings. All the recovery witnesses have specifically deposed that on 04.05.2012 after receiving information, a raiding party was formed and at about 6.00/7.00 pm, accused came at the spot carrying white color plastic bag. They have further specifically deposed that accused was apprehended by them and three leopard skins were recovered from the bag of accused and accordingly, he was arrested. These witnesses have also deposed that some public persons were asked to join the proceedings but none agreed. The testimony of police witnesses should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principal of law that without corroboration their testimony cannot be relied upon. It is not a proper approach to distrust and suspect the testimonies of police witnesses without good grounds and to this effect help can be taken from the judgment titled as "Karamjeet Singh Vs. State : AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1311. Therefore, non joining of public witness is not fatal to the prosecution case. In any case, if independent person is not willing to be a witness, the prosecution cannot be blamed and evidence of other witnesses Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 10 of 14 11 cannot be discarded. In support of claim and contention, reliance may be placed upon the judgment reported in AIR 1988 S C 1988. These witnesses were cross examined at length by Ld. Defence counsel, but Ld. Defence Counsel could not extract anything from the mouth of these witnesses to support the case of accused. These witnesses have successfully passed the test of cross examination.
18. Further CW3 i.e. C.P. Sharma, Senior Technical Officer has also specifically deposed that based on Blotching patterns on the skin and their characteristics and after comparison with reference material, it was concluded that all three skins are of leopard (Panthera Pardus). Furthermore, learned defence counsel has not disputed the identification of the case property.
19. Ld. Defence counsel has also relied upon some judgments. It is to be kept in mind that each case has its own facts and circumstances. Even otherwise, the judgment (Prithvipal Singh, supra) relied upon Ld. Defence counsel also says that failure to comply with the provision of Cr.P.C. in respect of search and seizure and particularly those of sections 100,102,103 & 165 per se does not vitiate the trial under the Act. Ld. Defence counsel has further argued about the mentioning of FIR number on the seizure memo. It is not in dispute that seizure memo i.e. Ex. CW 1/A is bearing the FIR number of the case. However, from this it cannot be said that FIR was registered before the seizure of skins. It does not imply that FIR was registered before preparing the seizure memo. None of the witness was put any question that whether any addition or alteration was made on the seizure memo. FIR number is put on the seizure memo just for the sake of identity that this document pertains to a particular case.
Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 11 of 14 12
20. At this stage it would be relevant to go through section 57 of the Act which says:
Presumption to be made in certain cases.____ Where, in any prosecution for an offence against this Act, it is established that a person is in possession, custody or control of any captive animal, animal article, meat, (trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part of derivative thereof} it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, the burden of proving which shall lie on the accused, that such person is in unlawful possession, custody or control of such captive animal, animal article, meat (trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part of derivative thereof}.
21. Hence, as per section 57 of the Act, prosecution has to prove that accused was found in possession/custody or control of any part or deliberately of any animal and until the contrary is proved, which is to be proved by the accused, custody of such person will be treated to be unlawful custody. The accused has not lead any evidence to rebut the presumption of Section 57 of the Act. From the cross examination of prosecution witnesses, accused has failed to bring anything on record to rebut the said presumption. Complainant has also complied with the Section 50(4) of the Act wherein any person detained or things seized shall forthwith be taken before a Magistrate. In the present case, recovery was effected on 04.05.2012 and accused alongwith case property (in sealed condition) i.e. three leopard skins were produced before the Court on 05.05.2012.
Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 12 of 14 13
22. It is also pertinent to mention here that during the course of cross examination of the witnesses, Ld. Defence Counsel did not give any suggestion as to why the witnesses are deposing against the accused. Even otherwise, it is not the case of accused that witnesses were inimical towards the accused. It is also to be kept in mind that the case property is not easily available in the market. Witnesses have totally supported the case of the prosecution regarding the recovery of leopard skins and also they all are corroborating each other on all material aspects and there is no inconsistency contradictions in their statement. Their statements on record are found to be cogent, inspire the confidence of the Court and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Further, minor discrepancies which have been pointed out, I am of the view that they are not of such nature which create infirmity in the complainant's case. I do not find any reason that why complainant would falsely implicate the accused.
23. Hence, in view of the submissions made above and after scanning the entire report, I have no hesitation to hold that complainant has successfully able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts that three leopard skins (uncured) were recovered from the possession of the accused, on the said date, time and place as stated above. The leopard skin is specified in schedule I of the Act and thus the accused has contravened the provisions of Section 49 of the Act. As far as contravention of Section 49(B) of the Act is concerned, complainant has failed to prove its case that accused was carrying any business or he was manufacturer, dealer of the case property. There is not a single evidence towards this fact that accused was also doing the business of the case property or he was manufacturer or dealer of the property in question.
Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 13 of 14 14 Complainant has failed to prove that accused has contravened any of the condition of Section 49(B) of the Act. None of the witnesses examined by the complainant have ever deposed that accused has contravened the provision of Section 49(B) of the Act. Accordingly, accused is held guilty and is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for the contravention of Section 49 of the Act. Case property if any be confiscated the state.
Announced in open
Court on 22nd October, 2016 DEEPAK WASON)
ACMM(Special Acts) CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI
Wild Life Vs. Meetu Singh CC No. 514359/2016 14 of 14