BHAGAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-8-73
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 01,2013

BHAGAT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Accused Persons Were Tried For The Offences Under Sections 9/51 Of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, Found Them Guilty Of The Offences Complained Of Against Them And Were Convicted, Vide Judgment And Order Dated 27.04.2006. They Were Directed To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For Three Years, Along With A Fine Of Rs. 2000/- Each. Aggrieved Against The Said Order, The Convicts Preferred Criminal Appeal, Which Was Dismissed By Learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, Vide Impugned Judgment And Order Dated 08.04.2008. The Conviction And Sentence Awarded To The Accused Persons Was Affirmed. Aggrieved Against The Impugned Judgment And Order, Present Criminal Revision Was Preferred By The Accused-Revisionist Bhagat Singh.
(2.) On 08.08.2003, A Bear Cub Was Injured. Forest Officials Reached At The Place Of Incident. Accused Persons Were Found In Possession Of A Dead Bear Cub. On Seeing The Forest Officials, The Accused Persons Tried To Run Away, But Were Apprehended On The Spot. One Of The Accused Was Found In Possession Of Nylon Rope. The Others Were Found In Possession Of Other Articles Including Axe And Dead Bear Cub. Pw 1 Chandi Prasad Sati, Pw 2 Vilochan Pokharia, Pw 3 Prakash Chandra Kapli And Pw 4 Doctor N.S.Negi Were Examined On Behalf Of The Prosecution. Incriminating Evidence Was Put To The Accused Persons Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., In Which They Said That They Were Falsely Implicated In The Case. No Evidence Was Given In Defence.
(3.) Pw 1, Pw 2 And Pw 3 Supported The Prosecution Story. Pw 1 Chandi Prasad Sati, Who Was Assistant Wild Life Warden, Joshimath, Nanda Devi National Park, Filed The Complaint (Ext. Ka-1). He Proved Various Documents Including Exts. Ka-2, Ka-3, Ka-4, Ka-5, Ka-6 And Ka-7. The Recovery Memo Was Ext. Ka-4. The Axe Found From The Possession Of The Accused-Revisionist Was Material Ext. -2. The Gallbladder Of The Dead Body Of Bear Cub Was Marked As Ext. Ka-4. Pw 2 Was Present With Pw 1 And He Also Proved Ext. Ka-2. Pw 2 Also Said That The Accused-Revisionist Was Found In Possession Of An Axe, By Which The Bear Cub Was Killed. The Accused Persons Were Arrested On The Spot. No Person From The Locality Was Present. Doctor Conducted Postmortem On The Dead Body Of The Bear Cub. The Minor Children Of The Injured Woman Pointed Out The Place Of Incident To The Forest Officials. It Was On The Basis Of Information Given By Somebody That A Woman Was Injured By A Bear Cub In Village Salang, That The Forest Officials Reached There.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.