After a 16 year old legal fight, a complaint against a journalist has been quashed by the Gujarat High Court. The journalist, the High Court has observed definitely disturbed a lion who was feeding on his prey but the journalist had not committed the offence of hunting the animal.
In 2009, a case had been registered against a journalist for allegedly disturbing a lion while it was feeding, “outside” the forest limits in Gir National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary. In doing so the court observed that merely disturbing a lion would not fall within the ambit of hunting as defined under the Wildlife Protection Act. The court however remarked that while conduct would not amount to an offence, it indicated insensitivity and recklessness. But the Gujarat High Court took note of the petitioner’s apology and regret for his actions also soon after the incident.
The petitioner, a journalist, had visited Gir National Park and Sanctuary in November 2009 along with two others who are affiliated with an NGO working in the field of animal and environmental welfare. The order said that the group had entered the forest with valid permits and in the company of an official guide. Later that night, while refuelling his vehicle in the city area, the petitioner was informed by local villagers that a lion was seen consuming its prey in an agricultural field outside the sanctuary limits. It was stated that the petitioner and his companions proceeded towards the location, which “falls within the revenue area and not within the forest boundary”. At that juncture, the petitioner and his companions were intercepted by the local Range Forest Officer. A Forest Offence First Report was registered on November 6, 2009 under Sections 2(16)(b)(defines hunting), 2(33)(defines vehicle), 9(hunting), 39(Wild animals, etc., to be Government property) and 51(Penalties) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act alleging that the petitioner had “disturbed a lion while it was feeding”. There was no allegation or evidence of hunting; the incident location being outside the forest limits was corroborated by the Gram Panchayat’s Rojkam. The petitioner was released on bail and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed.
As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner and his companions had allegedly flashed lights from a Scorpio vehicle, thereby disturbing the lion in the act of feeding.However, the court said the journalist’s actions did not fall under the section of hunting which is a very serious crime. The Court said a bare comparison with the statutory definition of “hunting” under Section 2(16)(b) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, clearly indicates that the act attributed to the petitioner does not fall within the scope of “hunting”, nor within its grammatical variations or cognate expressions as envisaged under the said provision. The definition of “hunting” contemplates acts such as capturing, killing, poisoning, snaring, or trapping of a wild animal, or attempts thereof, or actions that cause physical harm or destruction. Merely disturbing a lion, does not meet the threshold to constitute an offence of “hunting” under the Act”. The court observed that the residual provisions—Sections 9, 39, and 51—which are premised upon the commission of an act of hunting or unlawful possession of wild animals or their parts, were not attracted in the absence of any foundational ingredient being satisfied.
Also Read: Gir’s Iconic Asiatic Lion Duo Jay, Veeru Dead https://www.vibesofindia.com/girs-iconic-asiatic-lion-duo-jay-veeru-dead/
