The Karnataka High Court recently affirmed the conviction of four individuals accused of attempting to consume deer meat but reduced their sentence to the time already served. In the case of Boothappa and Ors. vs The State of Karnataka, Justice V Srishananda addressed the dispute regarding the meat’s identity, emphasizing that if it were sheep meat, there would be no need to bake it in an isolated location over a campfire.
The Court heard the appeal by the accused challenging their conviction under Sections 2(16)(b), (c), (35)(36) read with Sections 9, 39, 50 punishable under section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The trial court initially sentenced them to three years of simple imprisonment.
According to the chargesheet, forest officials received information from sources about individuals killing an animal and planning to consume it in a secluded area. Allegedly, upon raiding the place, officials discovered half-cooked meat, the animal’s head, and other bones.
Based on this, a trial magistrate convicted the accused, and the district court upheld the conviction. Subsequently, the accused appealed to the High Court.
The accused argued that the prosecution’s case was weak, claiming improper framing of charges by the lower court, which allegedly rendered the entire trial flawed. Alternatively, they contended that sentence modification was appropriate due to their age and being first-time offenders.
On the contrary, the State supported the district court’s order, arguing that the oral evidence of the veterinary expert was sufficient to establish that the accused had killed two deer. The State sought the dismissal of the petition, emphasizing that the seizure of the half-baked meat and other materials clearly indicated an attempt to cook the meat. The Government Pleader also highlighted that the raiding party’s leader had no personal animosity against the accused to falsely implicate them.
The Court agreed that there was no reason for the head of the raiding party to falsely implicate the accused. Furthermore, it noted that the petitioners’ submission acknowledging the incident but disputing the meat’s identity indicated acceptance of the occurrence. The Court concluded that the only dispute was whether the meat was from a deer, and in that regard, baking it in a solitary place over a campfire was unnecessary.
As a result, the Court upheld the conviction, but due to the age of the accused (in their 60s and 70s), their sentence was reduced to the time already served, along with a fine of ₹25,000 each.
