Ramesh Kol vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 28. 03.2019 passed

in Criminal Appeal No. 73/2018 by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi, District Sidhi whereby, conviction passed under Section 51 of Wild Life

(Protection) Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation by J.M.F.C.,

District Sidhi in Criminal Case No. 260/2017 judgment dated 23.3.2018 applicant being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence preferred appeal,

registered as Criminal Appeal No. 73/2018 Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, District Sidhi vide judgment dated 28.03.2019 dismissed the appeal

upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the Court of JMFC. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against the both Court

below filed this revision.

Facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that accused was having a tractor not exhibiting the registration No. M.P.53 M-1962 and illegally filled

a sand from the Bank of Son River situated near village Madarhai. This area was reserved as a Sanctuary Son Ghadiyal, Sidhi. The range staff of the

Forest Department Virendra Prasad Mishra, Dy. Ranger (P.W.2), Tarun Pratap Singh, Forest Guard (P.W.1), Shiv Bahadur Singh, Forest Guard

(P.W.3), Anand Bahadur Singh, Forest Guard (P.W.4) and other persons conducting the night patrolling of the Sanctuary found that applicant, after

filling the sand was coming out from the bank of Son River, he was stopped by the patrolling team not having any valid authority to enter into the

Sanctuary and excavating the sand from the bank of Son River. The Forest Team prepared a Panchnama and spot map and after completing all the

formalities, registered case on POR No. 6857/23 in the next morning of the day i.e. on 28.04.2007 and submit a complaint against the applicant for the

offence punishable under Section 27, 29, 39, 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in the Court of J.M.F.C. Learned Court of J.M.F.C. after trial

delivered the judgment on 23.3.2018 convicted the applicant under Section 51 of Wile Life (Protection) Act and has been sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 01 year with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. Being aggrieved by this conviction and judgment passed by the trial

Court preferred an appeal registered as a Criminal Appeal No. 73/2018. Learned Appellate Court after hearing both the parties delivered the judgment

on 28.03.2019 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

The applicant being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Appellate Court below filed this petition on the ground that both Court below have not

considered the evidence in proper perspective. All witnesses are interested witnesses and concerned to the same department, no independent

witnesses have been examined to affirm the allegation levelled against the applicant, conviction and sentence suffers from infirmity and illegality and

imposed merely relying on the version of the interested witnesses, therefore, prays to allow this petition and set-aside the acquit the applicant.

Learned Panel Lawyer appeared on behalf of the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the revision and submits that judgment of the both

Court below is well founded. There is no need of interference in conviction and sentence and prays for dismissal of this revision.

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the evidence recorded during trial. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

Investigating Officer has not investigated about the owner of the tractor, who was the owner of the tractor is not clear from the evidence. It is the

owner who committed the offence, applicant being a Labour wrongly implicated in this case.

After perusal of the statement of Virendra Prasad Mishra is the Dy. Ranger (P.W.2) of the area Shikarganj, District Sidhi. He stated that in the

night of 27 and 28.04.2007, he was in the night patrolling along with the staff of the Forest Department and found that near the village of Madarhai at

the bank of Son River, one tractor filled with a sand was coming out from the Son River. This witness along with the staff stopped the tractor and

asked for the authority, the driver who is the applicant herein was driving the tractor not submitted any document. After registering the forest crime,

filed the complaint before J.M.F.C.. Tarun Pratap Singh, Forest Guard (P.W.1) this witness is also member of raiding party and also supported the

statement of Virendra Prasad Mishra, Dy. Ranger (P.W.2) and Shiv Bahadur Singh, Forest Guard (P.W.3) was also supported the statement of

Anand Bahadur Singh, Forest Guard (P.W.4) also supported the seizure of the tractor but stated that at that time when tractor was seized the sand

was filling in the tractor. Tarun Pratap Singh, Forest Guard (P.W.1), Virendra Prasad Mishra, Dy. Ranger (P.W.2) and Shiv Bahadur Singh, Forest

Guard (P.W.3) has categorically stated the fact that applicant was driving the tractor at the time of seizing. He was the possession holder of the

tractor trolley at the time of the incident. In examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Applicant only stated that the forest employee

demanded illegal money, he is the Labour of the owner of the tractor, he has falsely been implicated. He admitted that he is the employee of the

tractor owner. The tractor seized in the intervening night of 27.04.2007 and 24.04.2007 why the applicant took the tractor and trolley on the bank of

Son Ghadiyal, it is a prohibited and notified area of the Son Ghadiyal Sanctuary, has not been explained by the applicant anywhere. The bank of Son

River a reserved for the habitat of extinct species of Ghadiyal, no one is allowed to collect the sand from the bank because that bank used as a habitat

of the Ghadiyal where Ghadiyal lays eggs.

On the basis of foregoing discussion and after perusal of the evidence recorded before the trial Court, this Court finds that there is sufficient

evidence against the applicant. Applicant preferred this criminal revision on the ground that learned trial Court has grossly erred in appreciation of

evidence. This Court while invoking the revisional jurisdiction having a limited scope to appreciate the evidence in comparison of the appellate

jurisdiction.

This Court does not find any gross error in the mis-appreciation of the evidence and any miscarriage of the justice in convicting the applicant for

that offence.

So far as the sentence is concerned, applicant is a first offender and not having any criminal past. He was working as Driver on the instruction of

the owner of the tractor. Looking to all these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the punishment of one year rigorous

imprisonment seems harsh punishment. The applicant has already undergone the period of more than three months in custody. This Court finds it fit to

convert the sentence of imprisonment already undergone the period of the sentence and deems it fit to increase the fine amount from Rs.2,000/- to

Rs.5,000/-with the same default stipulation.

On the basis of above observations, this revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

is hereby upheld and sentence of imprisonment is reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone and increased the fine

amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/- with the same default stipulation imposed by the trial Court.

With the above modification, this criminal revision stands disposed of.