Inspr Vijayakumar, HC Reply (27.03)

8/2/2019 Inspr Vijayakumar, HC Reply (27.03)

1/5


2/5

from the District Police Office in C.No.A2/ 3100/2011 DO

No.814/2011 dated 23.06.2011.

4 It is humbly submitted that on 31.12.2011 at around

01.00 hrs, Thiru.Narayanan, Special Sub Inspector of police,

Nanguneri Police station was on rounds in Othamavu village

along with Thiru.Thirumal, Head Constable No. 202 and

Thiru.Balasubramaniam, Police Constable No.1744 and

accompanied by the Village Administrative Officer,

Thalapathisamuthiram and the Village Assistant of RajakkalMangalam partII with a view to preventing illicit mining

when they found the petitioner herein and three others by

name Dinesh Christoper, Gnanasekar and Kumar @

Gnanamuthukumar standing with three motor cycles. On

seeing the police team, the foursome including the petitioner

tried to run away. They were secured and questioned when

Dinesh Christoper who was found in possession of a SBBL

gun told the Police that it was a licensed gun belonging to

his paternal uncle Salomon and they all came there for

hunting Hares. The Special Sub Inspector Thiru.Narayanan

seized the SBBL gun with 7 live cartridges and one empty

cartridge, three motor cycles bearing registration numbers

TN 22 AF 7182, TN 72 AY 5562, TN 72 Q 2856 and the dead

hare under the cover of an Athatchi, brought them to station

at 02.45 hrs and registered a case in Nanguneri Police

Station Crime No. 406 /2011 u/s 27 of the Arms Act

1959 and section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972.

5 I took up investigation of the case, visited the scene of

crime and examined the witnesses. At about 11.00 hrs, I

arrested all the four accused at Nanguneri Police station and

questioned them when A1 Dinesh Christoper alone gave a

confessional statement voluntarily. However I examined the

other three accused including the petitioner, recorded their

statements and forwarded them to the Honorable Judicial

2


3/5

Magistrate Nanguneri. The Honorable Magistrate remanded

all the four accused to Judicial custody. The petitioner was

placed under suspension with effect from 02.01.2012. The

accused were released on bail subsequently.

6 Investigation made so far revealed that the petitioner

herein (A 4) and accused No.1, 2 and 3 were friends and

they used to go for hunting on and off borrowing a licensed

gun from one Solomon, an Ex-service man and paternal

uncle of A1 Dinesh Christoper. On the day of the allegedoccurrence, they went to Othamavu village lying on the

Northern side Rajakkalmangalam situated about 8

kilometers south east of Nanguneri Police Station for

hunting. In the course of which, the petitioner herein (A4)

aided A1 Thiru.Dinesh Christoper who had no license to hold

a fire arm to kill the hare, a wild animal by firing a gun shot.

The Hare was shot dead on a vacant land belonging to one

Sudalaikannu Nadar. A2 and A3 abetted them. It was also

revealed that the petitioner left his Head quarters on the

night of 30.12.2011 abandoning his duty without leave or

permission, unauthorizedly visited the said area along with

A1, A2 and A3 and committed the said offences.

7 It is humbly submitted that the allegations that there

was personal animosity between me and the petitioner and

that the petitioner was falsely implicated on my investigation

are false and baseless. Investigation revealed that although

the petitioner was not found in possession of the said gun

and had not killed the wild animal, it was he (petitioner

herein) who taught A1 Dinesh Christoper to handle the gun

and aided him to aim and shoot the Hare.

8 The allegation that no independent witness has

attested the confession and the seizure mahazer is denied.

In point of fact, Thiru. Narayanaperumal Village

3


4/5

Administrative officer, Thalapathisamuthiram Thiru. Muthiah

Village Assistant Rajakkalmangalam Thiru. Muthu S/o

Sudalaikannu, Nanguneri and Thiru. Rabinraj Village

Administrative Officer, Nanguneri have attested the Athatchi

and the confession recorded on 31.12.2011. There was no

manipulation of documents in respect of the seizure of

vehicles.

9 It is humbly submitted that the petitioner herein was

aware that possessing and using a fire arm without any validlicense was an offence u/s 27 of the Arms Act and that

hunting and killing a wild animal (Hare) was an offence

under section 51 of Wild Animal (Protection) Act 1972.

Therefore he, being a responsible police officer ought to

have prevented such offences; but he himself had

participated in hunting and aided the accused to commit

the said offences.

10 It is humbly submitted that the Veterinary Assistant

surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary Nanguneri who conducted

post-mortem examination over the corpse of the male

rabbit (Hare) was of opinion that the animal would appear to

have died of shock and hemorrhage due to the punctured

wound found at the left chest and the contusion found on

the forehead. The seized SBBL gun and the live and empty

cartridges have been sent to the State Forensic Laboratory

for examination. The report of the Ballistic expert is

awaited.

11 It is humbly submitted that so far as the instant case is

concerned, the complaint and the statements of witnesses

explicitly constitute offences u/s 27 of Arms Act 1959 and

section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and as such

there is no scope of abuse of process of law.

4


5/5

12 The averments made in the petition are devoid of truth

and merit and the case is still under investigation.

13 It is therefore humbly prayed that this Honorable Court

may be pleased to dismiss the petition, and thus render

justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Madurai onSignature ofthis the day of March -2012 &

Respondent No.3signed his name in my presence.

5

Documents

Inspr Vijayakumar, HC Reply (27.03)