No Evidence of Hunting of Tiger or Sanctuary Violation: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Accused in Wildlife Protection Case

High Court overturns convictions under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 due to insufficient evidence proving illegal hunting and unauthorized entry into a protected area.

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has overturned the conviction of Taseen, who was previously found guilty of illegal hunting and unauthorized entry into a protected area under various sections of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Justice Ravindra Maithani's judgment cited a lack of substantial evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, ultimately mandating Taseen's release.

Taseen was arrested on December 18, 2013, by forest officials patrolling the Dhela Bhabhar Forest Block. Accused of planning to hunt tigers, Taseen allegedly admitted his intent to kill tigers upon invitation from an associate. The prosecution charged him under Sections 2(16), 2(35), 9, 27, 38(v), and 35(8) read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The trial court convicted Taseen, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, leading to the current revision petition before the High Court.

The court scrutinized the evidence presented, noting significant gaps and inconsistencies. "The prosecution has not been able to establish that the alleged place of incident falls within a Sanctuary," remarked Justice Ravindra Maithani, emphasizing the absence of concrete proof regarding the location and activities attributed to Taseen.

Six witnesses, including arresting officers and site plan preparers, were examined under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the court observed inconsistencies in their statements. "The prosecution failed to establish beyond doubt the precise boundaries of the sanctuary and the revisionist’s actions within it," the judgment noted, undermining the reliability of the testimonies.

The court extensively discussed the definitions and applicability of Sections 2(16) and 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. Section 2(16) defines 'hunting,' which includes capturing, killing, or attempting to do so. However, the court found no direct evidence linking Taseen's actions to these activities. "The definition clause cannot be related to any penalty clause," Justice Maithani stated, highlighting the prosecution's failure to demonstrate that Taseen’s actions constituted hunting under the Act.

Central to the court's decision was the ambiguity regarding the sanctuary's boundaries. The site plan and witness statements did not conclusively prove that the incident occurred within the protected area. "The place of arrest has been shown in Fika Saut, which is beyond Dhaila Range 1-B," the court noted, further complicating the prosecution's case. This lack of clarity led to the acquittal, as the court could not presume the location's status without definitive evidence.

In light of the prosecution's failure to provide substantial evidence, the court allowed the criminal revision, setting aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts. "The impugned judgment and orders are bad in the eyes of law. They deserve to be set aside and revision allowed," declared Justice Maithani.

Justice Maithani remarked, "There must be some boundaries. As stated, even as per site plan, the place of incident falls outside Compartment No.1B Dhaila Range. The prosecution has not been able to establish that the alleged place of incident falls within a Sanctuary."

Date of Decision: 15th May 2024