1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Jail Revision No. 2 of 2001 Hikmat Singh Ghatal S/o Shri Ganesh Singh R/o Village Seri, Ward No. 3 P.S./District Vaitari, Nepal …..…Revisionist (in Jail) Versus 1. Divisional Forest Officer Tarai Forest Devision,Haldwani 2. State of Uttarakhand through Collector, Champawat. ……….Opposite Parties Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, (Amicus Curiae), present for the appellant. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A., present for the State. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is received from Superintendent , District Jail, Tehri Garhwal, moved by appellant Hikmat Singh Ghatal, is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.02.2011, passed by Sessions Judge,Champawat, in crime no. 9 of 2010, whereby said court has affirmed the conviction of the accused/appellant Hikmat Singh Ghatal recorded under section 51 of Wild Life 2 (Protection) Act, 1972, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, vide his order dated 02.06.2010, passed in criminal case no. 137 of 2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.12.2005, at about 19:45 hours near Saalmani Jungle within the limits of Police Station Tanakpur, Station House Officer R.C. Thapliyal (P.W. 1) and other officials intercepted the present accused/appellant Hikmat Singh Ghatal and recovered one skin of leopard which was being carrying without valid papers. The first information report no. 628 of 2005, was registered against the accused Hikmat Singh Ghatal at police Station Tanakpur, and the information was sent to the concerned Divisional Forest Officer. The Divisional Forest Officer,Tarai Forest Division, District Nainital, filed criminal complaint against accused Hikmat Singh Ghatal on which the accused was summoned and trial started. On 13.09.2007, after hearing the parties charge sheet was framed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, to which the accused Hikmat Singh Ghatal pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 R.C. Thapliyal, Inspector, P.W.2 Naranyan Singh (Investigating Officer), P.W. 3 Manoj Kothari, P.W. 4 Vipin Chandra Joshi, P.W.5 3 Sundar Singh Chamiyal. The prosecution evidence was read over to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he alleged that evidence adduced against him to be false. In defence accused Hikmat Singh Ghatal got himself examined as D.W. 1 after obtaining permission under section 315 Cr.P.C., in which he stated that on 14.12.2005, he was on way from India to Nepal when the policemen encountered him. The bag in which the skin of leopard was lying belonged to another person who succeeded in fleeing to Nepal, and the police planted recovery against him. 3. The trial court after considering the evidence on record, and hearing the parties found that prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, against the accused Hikmat Singh Ghatal, and after hearing on sentence, sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of four years, and directed to pay fine of ` 10,000/-. Aggrieved by said order dated 02.06.2010, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, in criminal case no. 137 of 2007, convict preferred criminal appeal no. 9 of 2010, before the Sessions Judge, Champawat. Said court, after hearing the 4 parties, affirmed the conviction of the appellant Hikmat Singh Ghatal but reduced the sentence to three years simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by said orders passed by the courts below this revision is got sent by the convict Hikmat Singh Ghatal (present revisionist) through Superintendent of District Jail, Tehri Garhwal. 4. I have gone through the statements of P.W. 1 R.C. Thapliyal, P.W.3 Manoj Kothari and P.W. 5 Sundar Singh Chamiyal. These three witnesses of fact have proved the alleged recovery from the accused Hikmat Singh Ghatal. There is nothing on the record which creates doubt in their testimony. They have been subjected to lengthy examination but nothing has come out which shakes the testimony of the three witnesses. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality committed by the courts below in convicting and sentencing accused Hikmat Singh Ghatal under section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. On the point of sentence learned Amicus Curiae pleaded that accused remained in jail from 14.12.2005 to 01.04.2006, again from 21.05.2009 to 02.06.2010, and from November 2010 to till date. As such, he has already spent more than two years in 5 jail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the period is more than two years already undergone in jail during investigation/trial/appeal/revision is sufficient punishment to the convict (present revisionist). 5. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed so far as the accused Hikmat Singh Ghatal is convicted under section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. On the point of sentence , the sentence awarded to the convict (revisionist) Hikmat Singh Ghatal is reduced to period already undergone. The revisionist shall be set at liberty if not required to be found in connection with any other crime. Lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 18.11.2011