Observing that a magisterial court had been "very liberal" in awarding one-year jail term two men who were illegally possessed 81 protected wild animal skins in 1992, a sessions court here has upheld their sentence.
Additional Sessions Judge Hemani Malhotra observed this while dismissing the appeal of Delhi-residents Om Prakash and Rajesh Kumar who were convicted by the magisterial court under Wildlife Protection Act.
"I am of the opinion that the trial court has been very liberal and lenient in awarding only one-year jail term when the convicts were found in conscious possession of such a huge stock of skins of several protected wild animals," the judge said.
As per the prosecution, in a raid conducted in October 1992 by the Wildlife Inspector, Prakash and Rajesh were found illegally possessing 81 skins of animals including leopard, tiger, crocodile, wild hare, mongoose and jackal.
It said that during the raid on October 27, 1992, both the accused were apprehended by the wildlife inspector and Crime Branch officials of the Delhi police after the duo failed to produce the requisite permission/licence to possess the skins.
During the trial, the accused had denied the allegations saying they were packing some leather stuff and were falsely implicated by the officials.
The magisterial court, however, had sentenced them to one year jail term and also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 each on them.
The matter came up before the sessions court after both the convicts challenged the order passed by the magistrate.
The sessions court, while relying on the testimonies of wildlife inspector and Crime Branch officials, who had conducted the raid, said "the appellants were asked to produce legal source of procurement of the animal skins and licence to possess the scheduled animal skins, which they failed to produce. All the recovered skins were seized...
"...Testimonies reveal that they (prosecution witnesses) were members of the raiding party who had caught the convicts red-handed sorting out skins of the animals in contravention of the Wildlife Act...There was no enmity between the convicts and the Wildlife Department so as to falsely implicate them," the judge said.
"I find no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. The impugned judgement of conviction and order on sentence are upheld," the judge said.
