The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence under the Wild Life Protection Act. The Court held that prosecution witnesses were reliable and no independent corroboration was required, finding no grounds for interference.
None; the revision petition was dismissed without any merit.
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.
Crl.Revn. NO.575 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Revn. NO.575 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: March 03, 2010
Daulatia
...PETITIONER
VS.
State of Haryana
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
PRESENT: Mr.M.S.Sidhu Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
MOHINDER PAL, J.
Petitioner Daulatia was convicted by the trial Court under Section 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, conviction of the petitioner was maintained by the lower appellate Court but his sentence of rigorous imprisonment was reduced to one year. However, the sentence of fine and default clause was maintained. Hence this revision petition.
Crl.Revn. NO.575 of 2003 2
The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 15.12.1999 a police party headed by Inspector Sada Ram (PW2) along with Kaka Singh (PW3) while on patrol duty, apprehended accused Daulatia, who was having one bag and one gandala. On checking the bag, one jungle cat and one civet along with six traps were found. They were taken into custody by he complainant vide recovery memo Ex.P1. Thereafter, they were sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination. After conducting of post-mortem examination, the animals were cremated.
After completion of investigation, the accused was served with notice of accusation, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
At the trial, the prosecution examined Dr.M.R.Singhla, Veterinary Surgeon as PW1, the complainant Inspector Sada Ram as PW2 and Kaka Singh as PW3.
In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner Daulatia denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication.
No evidence was led in defence.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
Inspector Sada Ram (PW2) and Kaka Singh (PW3) have clearly stated in their statements that on 15.12.1999 when they were patrolling near Paploa river, they stopped the accused and on checking the bag, one jungle cat and one palm civet were recovered. They had no enmity with the petitioner to falsely implicate him in this case. They were subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited therefrom to challenge the veracity of their statements. It is well settled law that where
Crl.Revn. NO.575 of 2003 3
officials witnesses are reliable and trustworthy, there is no need of independent corroboration. The recovery in this case was effected on 15.12.1999 at 6.00 A.M. Nothing has come in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that any person from the public was available at that time. Therefore, if no independent witness was joined, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution in this case.
Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being without any merit.
March 03, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition against conviction and sentence under the Wild Life Protection Act warrants interference in revisional jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Daulatia
State of Haryana
Mohinder Pal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
