In a recent case before the Karnataka High Court, the conviction of four men accused of attempting to consume deer meat was upheld, but their sentence was reduced to the jail time they had already served. The dispute centered around whether the meat recovered was actually deer meat or that of a sheep. Justice V Srishananda remarked that if it was sheep meat, there would have been no need for the accused to bake it in a desolate location over a campfire.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the four accused challenging their conviction under various sections of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. They had initially been sentenced to three years of simple imprisonment by the trial court. The chargesheet stated that forest officials had received information about individuals killing an animal and planning to consume it in a secluded place. During the raid conducted by officials, partially cooked meat, the animal's head, and other bones were found.
The accused argued that the prosecution's case was weak and that the charges framed by the lower court were improper, thus invalidating the entire trial. They also sought a modification of the sentence, considering their age and the fact that they were first-time offenders.
The State supported the district court's decision, claiming that the oral evidence provided by a veterinary expert was sufficient to establish that the accused had killed two deer. The State emphasized that the head of the raiding party had no personal animosity towards the accused, suggesting that there was no reason for false implication. Furthermore, the seizure of the half-cooked meat and other materials indicated the accused's attempt to cook the meat.
The Court agreed that the head of the raiding party had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. It also noted that the petitioners' argument that a veterinary expert could not issue a certificate for an animal always found in the wild implied their acceptance of the incident. The dispute centered solely on whether the meat was from a deer, and the Court pointed out that there was no need for the accused to bake it in a secluded location over a campfire if it was sheep meat.
Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction and the trial court's order. However, taking into account the age of the accused (in their 60s and 70s) and their status as first-time offenders, their sentence was reduced to the time they had already served. Additionally, a fine of ₹25,000 was imposed on each of them.
Advocates PB Umesh and RB Deshpande represented the petitioners, while the State was represented by High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) K Nageshwarappa.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Karnataka High Court conviction four men deer meat reduced sentence jail time Boothappa and Ors. vs The State of Karnataka dispute meat recovery sheep desolate place campfire appeal Sections 2(16)(b) (c) (35)(36) 9 39 50 51 Wild Life (Protection) Act trial court chargesheet forest officials raid trial magistrate district court High Court prosecution's case hollow framing of charges vitiated trial age of accused first-time offenders State's support veterinary expert dismissal of petition animosity false implication seizure cooking meat petitioners' submission acceptance of incident reduction of sentence fine advocates Government Pleader.
