A criminal revision petition challenging a conviction for illegal possession of a leopard skin under the Wild Life Protection Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the evidentiary record sufficient and the imposed sentence lawful.
The criminal revision was dismissed as being devoid of substance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2005
Judgment reserved on: 21.10.2016 Judgment delivered on: 03.11.2016
Keshav Netam, Son of Shri Gudaha, Aged about 40 years, resident of Pujaripara Chowki, Makdi, P.S. Kondagaon, District Bastar (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant :- Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondent :- Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Shukla C A V Judgment
informant ( mukhbir ) that the applicant Keshav Netam had illegally kept the skin of wild animal which he wanted to sell between village Makdi and Belgaon. After receiving the information he registered the same in Rojnamcha Sanha . Assistant Sub Inspector P. L. Noutiyal (PW-4) along with the staff reached to the spot and in presence of witness Dayaluram (PW-1) and Bhivram (PW-3) notice was given to him under section 91 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-7) regarding search and illegal possession of skin of a wild animal (Leopard) and informing him to produce relevant documents, if any. The skin of leopard was seized vide Ex.P-2 from the possession of the applicant and he was arrested on the spot. On the basis of seizure memo vide (Ex.P- 2), Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-5) and First Information Report (Ex.P-9) were registered in Police Station Kondagaon.
sustainable and the applicant deserves to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
(ii)- The length of the skin from head to tale was 7 feet and 5 inch, the width of chest was 31 inch. The length of tale was 2 inch, the length of paws was 16 inch and the 18 inch. This witness in his cross-examination has stated that the colour of skin of leopard was golden yellow like the colour of normal leopard.
it is evident that the skin of wild animal recovered from the possession of the applicant was of a wild animal i.e. Leopard.
Life Protection Act, 1972. So far as the sentence is concerned the applicant has been convicted under section 49(B) read with section 51(1) (A) of the Wild Life Protection Act and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. The sentence of one year imprisonment is the minimum sentence which can be awarded under the aforesaid section. The Applicant was aged about 40 years at the time of commission of the offence, and the offence relates to killing of wild animal there has been a great decline in the number of wild animals because of illegal hunting, and further there appears no reason why the Applicant should be awarded punishment even lesser to the minimum sentence which can be awarded under the aforesaid Sections, I am of the considered opinion that the Courts below have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appellant under section 49(B) read with section 51(1)(A) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.
Sd/-
( Anil Kumar Shukla) Judge
santosh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the findings of the First Appellate Court suffer from any illegality, perversity or are invalid?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Keshav Netam
State of Chhattisgarh
Anil Kumar Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
