IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.753 OF 2009 Between: The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND T. Sainath ..... Accused/Respondent The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal under Section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C., 1973, is directed against the judgment, dated 28.01.2003, in C.C.No.286 of 2000, on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the sole accused was found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act (for Short ‘the Act’) for the contravention of Sections 39(2)(3) and 40(2) of the Act. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows. It is alleged that on 21.09.1999, P.W.3-Forest Range Officer Flying Squad, Hyderabad, got reliable information about possession of panther skin (trophy) by the accused. The Forest Range Officer along with Kishan Reddy-District Forest Officer and other staff proceeded to the house of the accused bearing Quarter No.387/2, Rifle Range Railway Quarters, Secunderabad, and found an old panther trophy and the same was seized in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 under a Panchanama. Basing on that Panchanama, a preliminary occurrence report was drafted under POR No.69/99 for the contravention of Sections 39 and 40 of the Act. P.W.3 also recorded the statement of the accused who stated that the panther trophy was available in his house from his childhood and he got it from his mother who derived it from her husband as ancestral property. After obtaining sanction from the Divisional Forest Officer, P.W.3 filed the complaint. 3. A charge under Section 51 of the Act for the contravention of Sections 39(2)(3) and 40(2) of the Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4, besides case property M.O.1. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, that the house from which M.O.1-Panther skin trophy was seized was not shown to be the residential house of the accused or the allotted quarter to the accused and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Hence, this criminal appeal by the State. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the charge under Section 51 of the Act for the contravention of Sections 39(2)(3) and 40(2) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act for the contravention of Sections 39(2)(3) and 40(2) of the Act has been proved; that the evidence of P.W.3 would go to show that the accused alone was residing in the constructed house bearing Quarter No.387/2, Rifle Range Railway Quarters, Secunderabad; and that therefore, he was in the constructive possession of the M.O.1-Panther trophy and therefore, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that it is for the prosecution to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The possession of panther trophy is a contravention under Sections 39(2)(3) and 40(2) of the Act. As per the evidence of P.W.3, the panther trophy was seized from the residential house bearing Quarter No.387/2, Rifle Range Railway Quarters, Secunderabad. The case of the accused is that he was not at all residing in that quarter. There cannot be any dispute that the possession of panther trophy is an offence under the Act, unless exempted by way of permit. 10. P.Ws.1 and 2 who said to have been present at the time of the seizure of M.O.1-Panther trophy from the Quarter bearing No.387/2, Rifle Range Railway Quarters, Secunderabad, did not support the case of the prosecution. They have given a complete go by to their earlier version. Therefore, the prosecution declared them hostile. Even after cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 with the permission of Court, nothing has been elicited so as to connect the accused with the M.O.1-Panther trophy. Therefore, the entire case rests upon the evidence of P.W.3. 11. P.W.3 is the Forest Range Officer Flying Squad. According to him, he conducted the ride along with the District Forest Officer. Ex.P1 is the seizure Panchanama drafted at the house of the accused at that time. Admittedly, the accused was not present in the house. The wife of the accused informed that it was given to her by her father and it has been there as ancestral property. 12. It is not in dispute that the accused is working as a Police Officer. Except the oral testimony of P.W.3, there is no proof to show that the accused has been residing in the quarter from where M.O.1-Panther trophy was seized. P.W.3 has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the quarter was allotted to the accused or his wife. Admittedly, it is a railway quarter. 13. D.W.1 was examined on behalf of the accused to show that the accused was not residing in that quarter. Ex.D1 is the register relating to the railway quarter which has been allotted to some other person, but not in the name of either the accused or his wife. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to show that the accused was residing in the house as on the date of ride conducted by P.W.3. 14. In the absence of any evidence, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. 15. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 28.01.2003, in C.C.No.286 of 2000, on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 25th August, 2009 KL