Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.18760/2018
(Radheshyam & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
&
M.Cr.C.No.16028/2018
(Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.)
Jabalpur, Dated: 17.05.2018
Shri H.S.Dubey, Senior Advocate with Shri Abhinav
Dubey, counsel for the petitioners in M.Cr.C. No.18760/2018.
Shri Narendra Nikhare, counsel for the petitioner in
M.Cr.C. No.16028/2018.
Shri B. P. Pandey, Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Since both the aforesaid miscellaneous criminal cases have arisen from the same crime number, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
Heard on this second application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioners Radheshyam, Rajendra, Sukhram and Ghanshyam and first application for bail filed on behalf of petitioner Dharmendra in aforesaid petitioners in Forest POR No.230/41 registered by Forest Circle- Kevlari, District-Seoni, under Sections 2, 9, 39, 40, 44, 48-A, 49, 50, 51 and 52 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
The first application for the same relief filed by Radheshyam, Rajendra, Sukhram and Ghanshyam had been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court by order dated 04.04.2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.9265/2018.
On 04.01.2018, a cow belonging to petitioner Ghanshyam was killed by a tiger in the jungle. The intimation of aforesaid incident was given by Ghanshyam to the Forest Department. However, Ghanshaym conspired with Radheshyam and Rajendra to kill the tiger. When forest officials came, petitioners 2 Ghanshaym, Rajendra and Radheshyam assured them that they would burn the carcass; therefore, the Forest Officials could go back. Thereafter, they called Dharmendra, who arrived with a poisonous substance thymate. After that they poisoned the carcass and returned. On 4th day i.e. 09.01.2018, the tiger consumed poisonous carcass and died. Petitioners Radheshyam, Rajendra, Shukhram and Dharmendra Sukhram cut its paws with an axe and also cut its bristles; thereafter, they distributed the parts of its body and nails amongst themselves. Sukhram and Rajendra concealed the paws in the jungle under a stone, after removing the nails. During investigation, the statement of the petitioners under Section 50 sub-Section 8 of Wildlife Protection Act were recorded. Petitioner Dharmendra did videograph of the fake burning of the carcass of the cow by remaining petitioners. On the disclosure statement made by petitioner Radheshyam, two front paws were seized from his house. On the disclosure statement made by Rajendra, five nails and 19 bristles were seized. On the disclosure statement made by Sukhram, a wooden plank on which paws were cut and five nails and an axe were seized. Two pairs of Sambhar horns were also seized from his possession.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that nothing has been seized from the possession of petitioners Dharmendra and Ghanshyam. There is no evidence against them, apart from the confessional statement made under Section 50 (8) of the Wildlife Protection Act. In fact, the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the Forest Officials, in order to shift the blame for their negligence as they have failed to arrive on the spot even after being intimated by petitioner Ghanshyam. The petitioners have been in custody since 13.01.2018 and charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioners be released on bail.
3Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the applications mainly on the ground that the tiger is a highly endangered animal, which has been placed in Schedule 1 appended to the Wildlife Protection Act. The statement of the petitioners under Section 50 (8) of the Wildlife Protection Act is admissible in the evidence and the statement can form sole basis for conviction. Remains of the tiger were seized from the possession of petitioners Rajendra, Radheshyam and Shukram. The role of other petitioners is also evident. The tiger was killed in a cynical manner for its body parts; therefore, the applications be dismissed.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State, in the opinion of this Court, petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail, at this stage.
Consequently, these applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioners Radheshyam Sahu, Rajendra, Sukhram, Ghanshyam and Dharmendra are dismissed.
The petitioners shall be free to renew the prayer at the later stage of the trial.
(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge Sha Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2018.05.21 02:02:36 -07'00'