Delhi District Court
State (Wli) vs Karmpal Etc on 1 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,
ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Spl. Acts) CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State (WLI) vs Karmpal etc
U/s 55 Of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
CC No.16/1/10
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial no. of the case : 02401R1595852008
(b) Date of commission of offence : 10.01.04
(c) Name of complainant : WLI Sh. VB Dasan
(d) Name, parentage, residence: 1)Karampal s/o Varunath
r/o S66, Gandhi Camp, Nehru Nagar,
New Delhi
2)Neeta w/o Sh. Lakshmi Ompal
3)Beela @ Leela w/o Sh. Jitender
both r/o Jhugi, Gandhi Camp,
Nehru Nagar, New Delhi
(e) Offence complained of/ proved : U/s 55 of Wild Life (P) Act
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order : Convicted
(h) Date of such order: 01.07.13
Date of institution of complaint: 04.02.08
Arguments heard/order reserved: 01.07.13
Date of pronouncement of Judgment: 01.07.13
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. The complainant Sh. VB Dasan, the then Wild Life Inspector filed the present complaint u/s 55 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) against the accused for contravention of section 9/49/49(B)(1) of the Act punishable u/s 51 of the Act.
As per prosecution story, on 10.01.04, when SI Harpal, Ct. Raj Kumar and Ct. Uma Kant, were on vehicle checking duty on picket in front of Shastri WLI vs Karampal etc. 1 of 7 Bhawan, Dr. Rajender Prasad Road, at about 9.40 am, one TSR bearing No.DL14G2191 came from the side of Janpath red light. IO stopped the said TSR in which all three accused were travelling. They were carrying three gunny bags and two more bags. Bags were checked. 20 live Agra Monitor Lizards from possession of accused Karam Pal, 27 live Agra Monitor Lizards from possession of accused Neeta and 10 live Agra Monitor Lizards from possession of accused Leela were recovered. The species of Agra Monitor Lizards are prohibited animals under ScheduleI of Wild Life (Protection)Act, 1972. Recovered case property was seized, accused were apprehended, an FIR was registered and after completion of investigation, present complaint was filed against the accused for contravention of provisions of section 9/49/49B(1) of the Act.
2. The accused were summoned. Copies of complaint and of documents were supplied. After precharge evidence, a charge u/s 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, was framed against all three accused persons for contravention of provisions of section 9/49/49B(1) of the Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined Ct. Uma Kant as PW1, Ct. Raj Kumar as PW2, WLI Sh. VB Dasan as PW3, SI Satyavrat as PW4 and woman home guard ct. Bimla as PW5.
PW1 Ct. Uma Kant and PW2 Ct. Raj Kumar, who happen to be on vehicle checking duty on the date of incident, reiterated the facts of the case WLI vs Karampal etc. 2 of 7 and deposed that on 10.01.04 when they were on vehicle checking duty in front of Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajender Prasad Road, New Delhi, accused persons were travelling in TSR No.DL1RG2147 with gunny bags. On checking, bags were found containing total 57 live Montior Lizards. Then IO SI Harpal Singh gave message through wireless set to PS Parliament Street from where SI Satyavrat, ASI Shishupal and one lady constable of home guard reached at the spot. Lizards were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A, an FIR no.9/04 was got registered, accused were arrested and their personal search were conducted vide arrest/personal search memo Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/G. They have also identified the accused correctly.
PW3 is WLI Sh. VB Dasan who filed the present complaint and identified the recovered lizards and stated that recovered lizards are of live Agra Monitor Lizards covered under ScheduleI of the Act. The witness further deposed that recovered lizards were handed over to the National Zoological Park, New Delhi and proved the document Ex.PW3/A in this respect and complaint as Ex.PW3/C. PW4 SI Satyavrat, the subsequent IO of the case, deposed that on 10.01.04 on receipt of DD 5A, he along with ASI Shishu Pal Dager and Ct. Hemant reached the spot where SI Harpal Singh handed over all three accused alongwith case property i.e. 57 live lizards to him. Then he recorded statement of SI Harpal Ex.PW4/A, seized the case property, prepared rukka mark A, got an FIR registered, prepared site plan Ex.PW4/B and arrested the accused persons.
PW5 is Home Guard Constable Bimla who deposed that on 10.01.04 WLI vs Karampal etc. 3 of 7 she alongwith woman constable Neeta conducted personal search of accused Neeta and Beela @ Leela and got their medical conducted. All witnesses were cross examined on behalf of accused.
The prosecution also examined one more witness i.e Ct. Bikash Pradhan as PW5 who took photographs of the case property. But testimony of this witness can not be taken into account as examination in chief of this witness was deferred for wants of photographs and thereafter he never turned up for his examination/cross examination.
4. After completion of post charge evidence, statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C read with section 281 Cr.P.C. separately wherein all accused denied all the material allegations levelled against them and submitted that nothing was recovered from their possession and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the relevant records. I have also gone through the relevant provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. A) The relevant provisions of section 9/49 and 49B(1) are reproduced for ready reference: [9. Prohibition of hunting. No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, III and IV except as provided under section 11 and section 12.
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 WLI vs Karampal etc. 4 of 7 authorised to sell or otherwise transfer the same under this act. 49B. Prohibition of dealings in trophies, animal articles, etc., derived from scheduled animals. (1) 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]
(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 eatinghouse.
B) Learned APP for the state argued that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of the testimony of the witnesses and witnesses identified the case property as well as accused.
On the other hand, learned defence counsel argued that accused is innocent. No such lizards covered under Wild Life (Protection) Act were recovered from the possession accused and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
C) Learned defence counsel further argued that testimony of prosecution witnesses is not reliable as no independent public witness was joined in this case though from the place of incident passersby were passing through. This arguments of the learned defence counsel does not carry much weight. From the cross examination of witnesses, it appears that in one way or the other, accused have admitted that they were travelling in the aforesaid TSR on the date of incident with aforesaid recovered lizards. Search and seizure of 57 live WLI vs Karampal etc. 5 of 7 Agra Montor Lizards from the possession of the accused are also evident from the seizure memo Ex.PW1/A which bears the thumb impressions of accused also. Accused have not denied that Ex.PW1/A does not bear their thumb impressions. Accused were apprehended from the aforesaid TSR in which they were travelling. From the site plan Ex.PW4/B, the place of incident appears to be not a thorough fair or number of vehicles used to pass through the road. Furthermore, accused have not specifically denied that they were not travelling in the aforesaid TSR on the date of incident. Therefore, nonjoining of witness is not fatal to the prosecution case. In any case, if independent persons are not willing to be a witness, the prosecution cannot be blamed and evidence of other witness cannot be discarded. In support of claim and contention, reliance may be placed upon the judgment reported in "AIR 1988 SC 1998".
D) All the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and PW1 and PW2 have also deposed in what manner accused were apprehended and aforesaid lizards were recovered from their possession. After apprehensions of accused, they were produced before the court alongiwth case property (recovered lizards) which were deposited in the National Zoological Park, New Delhi by the order of the court. If all these incidents are considered together, it can not be ruled that accused were not indulged in dealing in some prohibited creatures like Agra Monitor Lizards.
E) Accused opted not to lead any defence evidence or bring anything on record to disprove the prosecution story. Accused have failed to explain any reason of WLI vs Karampal etc. 6 of 7 their being implicated falsely in this case, if the prosecution story is incorrect. The accused did not come up with any explanation or reason for their false implication, if any. There is not even a single word mentioned in their statement as to why he would be falsely implicated by the complainant/Wild Life Inspectors in this case.
F) In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused that accused were apprehended with 57 live Agra Monitor Lizards while they were travelling in the aforesaid TSR on the said date, time and place, without any permit or licence. Species of Agra Monitor Lizards are covered in ScheduleI of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Trade/business of such animals are prohibited under the Act. Accordingly, all three accused are held guilty and are convicted for the offence u/s 9/49/49(B)(1) of Wild Life (Protection) Act. The said offences are punishable u/s 51 of the Act. Let accused be heard on sentence.
(DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA) ACMM(Special Acts) CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI Announced in open court on 01st July, 2013 (Total number of page 7 ) (One spare copy attached) WLI vs Karampal etc. 7 of 7