IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH (Criminal Jurisdiction) Crl.O.P.No.

3544 of 2012

M.Ashokan, S/o Masilamani, Nerunji Colony, Panagudi, Petitioner /Accused Tirunelveli District. -VsState Represented by The Inspector of Police, Respondent Nanguneri Circle, Tirunelveli District. REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 1

I, A.Vijayakumar aged 47 years, son of D.Amirtham,

working as Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Circle, Tirunelveli district do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows. 2 I am the Respondent herein and as such I am well

acquainted with the facts of the case. I deny the allegations made in the petition except those that are specifically admitted here under. 3 It is humbly submitted that the petitioner herein was

working as a Special Sub- Inspector of Police in Nanguneri Police station from 25.09.2008. On 07.07.2011, he was deputed for crime prevention and detection duty to be performed within the jurisdiction of Nanguneri and Vijayanarayanam Police stations as per the orders issued

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, accompanied by the Head Constable No. 202 and No.1744 and Officer, Village Administrative Thiru.Balasubramaniam, Police Constable

Thalapathisamuthiram and the Village Assistant of Rajakkal Mangalam partII name Dinesh with a view to preventing illicit mining Gnanasekar and Kumar @ when they found the petitioner herein and three others by Christoper, 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

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 occurrence, Northern and paternal uncle of A1 Dinesh Christoper. On the day of the alleged they went to Othamavu village lying on the side Rajakkalmangalam of Nanguneri situated about 8 Police Station for

kilometers south east

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 In The point allegation of fact, that no independent witness has

attested the confession and the seizure mahazer is denied. Thiru. Narayanaperumal Village

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 vehicles. 9 It is humbly submitted that the petitioner herein was of

aware that possessing and using a fire arm without any valid license 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 said offences. 10 It is humbly submitted that the Veterinary Assistant examination over the corpse of the male surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary Nanguneri who conducted post-mortem 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. awaited. 11 It is humbly submitted that so far as the instant case is The report of the Ballistic expert is the accused to commit

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.

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 Signature of this the day of Respondent No.3 signed his name in my presence. Madurai March -2012 on &