Punjab-Haryana High Court
Fakaria And Another vs State Of Haryana on 2 December, 2017
Author: Ramendra Jain
Bench: Ramendra Jain
CRR-3967-2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRR-3967-2017 (O&M)
Fakaria and another
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
..... Respondents
2. CRR-3977-2017 (O&M)
Satbir
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
..... Respondents
Reserved on: 31.10.2017
Pronounced on : 02.12.2017
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J.
1. This order shall dispose of above titled two revisions against a common judgment dated 07.09.2017 of the Ist Appellate Court, passed in respective appeals of the petitioners, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2015 and order of sentence dated 10.03.2015 of the trial Court, holding the petitioners guilty under Section 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short-'the 1972 Act') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and pay a fine of ` 10,000/- each. In default thereof, further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Fine was paid .
2. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CRR-3967-2017 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 03:57:58 ::: CRR-3967-2017 -2- (O&M). According to the prosecution story, around 2.30 P.M. on 06.06.2010, Madan Lal Wild Life Guard, Siwan along with his colleague Om Parkash, while patrolling in the area of Polar Drain, apprehended the petitioners carrying a plastic bag containing 13 yellow monitor lizards and digging instruments, like spade etc. Accordingly, after completion of investigation, a final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for commission of offence under Section 51(1) of the 1972 Act for contravening the provisions of Section 39 of the 1972 Act was filed in Court against the petitioners and they were charge-sheeted as such.
3. On appraisal of evidence brought on record by the prosecution and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners, as referred to in the opening part of this judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that there is a interpolation in the initial complaint/damage report Ex. P-1 dated 06.06.2010, inasmuch as the space for mentioning the date and the event column, initially left open, were filled lateron, which casts a serious doubt in the prosecution story. The case property was not produced in the Court at the time of trial, which has seriously prejudiced the right of the petitioners. Even no independent witness was joined during interrogation. The prosecution has failed to connect the petitioners with the commission of offence in the absence of any link evidence. No FSL report was called. The entire exercise against the petitioners was done maliciously while sitting in the police station.
5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 03:57:59 ::: CRR-3967-2017 -3-
6. In order to substantiate its allegations, Om Parkash, Wild Life guard, stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that around 2.30 P.M. on 06.06.2010, while on patrolling near Seonsar Drain, apprehended the petitioners carrying a plastic bag containing 13 yellow monitor lizards along with digging instruments like spade and gadali and prepared damage report Ex. P-1. The statement of this witness is duly corroborated by PW-2 Madan Lal, Wild Life Guard.
7. So far as the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovered monitor lizards were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Forest Range Officers, on the basis of their vast experience during their service career can identify a particular reptile and as such, there was no necessity for them to send the recovered monitor lizards to the FSL for their identification which were very well identified by PW-1 Om Parkash, Wild Life Guard. Therefore, the argument, being without any basis, is misconceived and rejected outrightly.
8. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the case property was not produced during trial is concerned, it has been established on the record that the lizards were ordered to be released in the forest area on an application Ex. PW-3/A moved by the prosecution before the trial Magistrate which were recovered from the possession of the petitioners vide recovery memo Mark E. Non-production of the plastic bag in which the lizards were carried, while recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, in my considered opinion, is of no relevance, inasmuch, as the lizards were poisonous and their lives could not be put in danger for such a long time. It has never been the case of the 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 03:57:59 ::: CRR-3967-2017 -4- defence that 13 yellow monitor lizards were not recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioners. Even at the time of framing of charge, no such point was raised that Lizards were not recovered from the petitioners. All the arguments noted above raised by learned counsel for the petitioners have been dealt with elaborately by both the Courts below giving sound reasoning therein and, thus, do not call for interference.
9. All the three petitioners in their confessional statements Ex. P-2 to Ex. P-4, admitted their guilt. Joining of independent witness was not necessary as PW-2 Madan Lal, Wild Life Guard; PW-3 Ram Karan, Wild Life Inspector and PW-4 Puran Chand, Photographer were very much present at the time of apprehension of the petitioners against whom no ill- will or motive has been attributed by the petitioners. The petitioner have failed to prove that any of the prosecution witness including the complainant had an axe to grind against them. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings against the guilt of the petitioners and the same are well reasoned and based on material evidence available on the record.
10. Taking into consideration the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2017 passed by the trial Court and that of the Ist Appellate Court dated 07.09.2017 are hereby upheld. Both the revisions filed by the petitioners to this extent are dismissed. However, keeping in view the mitigating circumstances of the petitioners inter alia that the petitioners have been made to suffer protracted trial for around 7 years etc., order of sentence dated 10.03.2017, passed by the learned trial Court is modified to the extent that the period of sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to 1 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 03:57:59 ::: CRR-3967-2017 -5- year rigorous imprisonment qua all the three petitioners, namely; Fakaria, Balbir and Satbir.
11. Accordingly, both the revisions stands disposed of.
December 2nd, 2017 ( RAMENDRA JAIN )
rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 03:57:59 :::