Abhishek Sinha vs The State of Karnataka

In this petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioner who hails from Jharkhand State and claims to be a student of Second year MBBS in Sri Siddartha Medical Collage has sought for quashing the FIR in Forest Offence Case No. 1/11-12 registered by the Range Forest Officer, Nelamangala Range, Nelamangala for the offence defined u/s 2(16)(a) r/w Section 9 which is punishable u/s 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 (for short "the Act"). According to the case of the prosecution, petitioner herein while driving the Honda City car owned by him bearing registration No. HR.29M/0229 on NH207 from Dabasepet to Doddaballapurs between Hadihosahalli and Yelekallu Road killed a panther who appears to have strayed on to the road and thereby he has committed offence of hunting a wildlife as defined u/s 2(16)(a) r/w Section 9 of the Act, thereby he has committed offence punishable u/s 51 of the Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted at its face value, it would not make out any case for any of the offence under the Act, since the incident appears to have occurred as a result of accident therefore, killing of wildlife in such motor vehicle accident would not be an offence of hunting as defined u/s 2(16)(a) of the Act.

After reading of the definition of expression ''hunting'' contained u/s 2(16)(a) r/w Section 9 of the Act I find no substance in the contention of the teamed counsel for the petitioner. Definition of the word "hunting" contained in Section 2(16) reads as under: "hunting" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes:

a) killing or poisoning of any wild animal or captive animal and every attempt to do so;

b) xxx

c) xxx

Reading of the above definition clearly indicates that in whatever manner Killing or attempting to kill any wild animal or captive animal happens, it would fall within the mischief of ''hunting''. In feet clause (a) of Section 2(16) was subsequently introduced by way of an amendment which came into effect from 01.04.2003. When expression or a word is defined in a statute, strict meaning should be given to such words. Section 9 prohibits arty person from hunting any animal. The Panther which has been kilted in this case is a wild animal. Though, the killing was in a road traffic accident, still it would fell within the definition of hunting u/s 2(16) of the Act. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this not a case which warrants quashing of the proceedings at the threshold. Therefore, I find no ground to entertain this petition.

Observations made during the course of this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition, which shall not in any way influence the Trial Court in any manner.