Sukh Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R No. 47, dated

02.04.2009, under Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act and Sections 27, 29, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Baijnath,

District Kangra, H.P.

Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that on 02.04.2009, a complaint was received in the Police Station Baijnath, wherein, it

has been alleged that accused Pappi Ram and coÂaccused, have killed a wild Sambhar with the gun of Sukh Ram (petitioner herein). On this

information, team of officials of Forest Department comprising Range Officer, Deputy Range Block Officer and Forest Guard of the beat reached the

spot, where meat of the killed Sambhar was being distributed. On seeing the forest team, 10Â15 persons, who were present on the spot, fled the spot

and out of them, only two persons were caught by the team and 10 Kg meat of Sambhar was seized. During the course of investigation, it has come

on record that the gun, which was involved in the incident, is owned by the petitioner. Consequently, FIR No. 47, dated 02.04.2009 came to be

registered against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition for quashing of said FIR.

Mr. Imran Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the case against the petitioner has been registered only on the allegation that

his gun was used by the main accused for committing the offence under the Wild Life Protection Act. He has further argued that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the present case, as it has come in the report of SFSL that cartridges were not fired from the gun of the petitioner. He has

argued that there is a delay of more than 10 years in presenting the challan in the learned Court below and on account of delay on the part of the

respondents, the petitioner who is innocent, is suffering. In these circumstance, no purpose would be served by continuing the case against the

petitioner and FIR against the petitioner is required to be quashed.

On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that it took considerable time to complete the formalities

and that is why delay has occurred in presenting the challan. He has further argued that the petitioner had produced the wrong cartridges before the

investigating agency, whereas, in fact the cartridges, with which the Sambhar was killed, were fired with his gun. Lastly, he prayed that since there is

enough evidence on record to prove the use of petitioner’s gun in killing the wild animal (Sambhar), the present petition be dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, this Court finds that there is no evidence to connect the gun of the

petitioner with the empty cartridges, as report of SFSL shows that cartridges were not fired from the gun of the petitioner and due to lack of such

evidence, it will be impossible to hold that the petitioner was involved in the alleged offence. Even otherwise, the gun of the petitioner was not

recovered from the spot.

So, after taking into consideration the above stated facts which have come on record, it is clear that gun of the petitioner was not at all used in the

alleged offence and thus, there is no reason to continue the trial against the petitioner. In these circumstances, when the FIR does not disclose any

offence against the petitioner, FIR, qua the petitioner, is required to be quashed. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R No. 47, dated

02.04.2009, under Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act and Sections 27, 29, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Baijnath,

District Kangra, H.P., qua the present petitioner, is ordered to be quashed, alongwith the consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, whereas,

trial against the other accused persons shall continue.

However, the findings recorded by this Court in the present case, shall have no effect on the trial, pending against the other accused persons, as the

findings recorded hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposal of the present case.

The petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith the pending application(s), if any.