Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 49-B and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, while reducing their sentence from six years rigorous imprisonment to three years simple imprisonment and increasing the fine to ₹25,000 each. The Court directed that the fine be deposited with the Animal Welfare Board of India. It held:
“The convictions do not require to be interfered with and stand affirmed.”
However, it modified the sentence noting:
“It is evincible that the appellants at the time of the offence were young in age. Moreover, it is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellants had themselves poached/killed the animals…”
Facts
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) received secret information that the appellants were involved in illegal trade of tiger skin and wildlife products and were to deliver a large quantity of such items in Nagpur in March 2001. On 21.03.2001, based on intelligence, a trap was laid by the CBI near a petrol pump. The accused were found in a silver Maruti Esteem car, in which one tiger skin was found on the front seat, and antler horns, claws, and teeth believed to be from a tiger were in the rear seat. Gunny bags containing 23 kg of tiger bones, 5 skulls, and more were also discovered in the car’s trunk.
The materials were sealed and seized on the spot, and the accused were arrested. The Wildlife Institute of India later confirmed that the materials belonged to protected species like tiger, panther, leopard, hyena, and chital. A complaint was filed under the Wild Life (Protection) Act and Section 120-B IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced them to six years’ rigorous imprisonment, which was upheld by the Sessions Court and High Court.
Issues
- Whether the recovery was made from the conscious possession of the appellants.
- Whether the alleged contradictions and lapses in investigation raised sufficient doubt to acquit the appellants.
- Whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offence.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The appellants argued that the prosecution’s version was inconsistent, particularly regarding whether the car arrived later or was already at the petrol pump before the raid.
- It was highlighted that four persons were initially apprehended but two were released, creating doubt about whether the accused were the only occupants.
- The trap team did not wait for the intended buyer to arrive, even though the information suggested a transaction was to take place.
- No effort was made to trace the supplier, only vaguely referred to as “Madhu,” or the intended recipient of the goods.
- They contended that the delay in interception made it improbable that the accused, if guilty, would have stayed at the petrol pump for hours with contraband.
- Alternatively, they pleaded for reduction in sentence considering the age of the appellants and absence of direct involvement in poaching.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The CBI, through counsel, argued that the courts below rightly convicted the appellants after full appreciation of evidence.
- It was submitted that the recovery was made in presence of independent witnesses and that the courts had already taken a lenient view by awarding six years’ imprisonment instead of the maximum seven years.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the Wild Life (Protection) Act’s Statement of Objects and Reasons, stressing the need for strict enforcement due to the declining state of wildlife. However, the Court reiterated that:
“The standard of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ still holds the field.”
It acknowledged investigative lapses, such as failure to trace the supplier or buyer, absence of evidence of a trade link, and failure to establish the age of the seized wildlife products.
Nonetheless, the statutory presumption under Section 57 of the Act still applied against the accused. The Court noted that the recovery of contraband from the accused in presence of independent witnesses could not be discredited.
Precedent Analysis
No specific precedent was cited by the Court. However, it emphasized general principles of criminal jurisprudence including the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt and statutory presumptions under wildlife law.
Court’s Reasoning
Despite investigative lapses, the Court held that the presence of neutral, independent witnesses (a government-nominated officer and a petrol pump manager), along with physical recovery of protected wildlife products, sufficiently linked the appellants to the offence. Their cross-examination did not dislodge the core of the prosecution case.
However, the Court distinguished between mere possession and active poaching or trading, noting the prosecution had not shown that the appellants had poached the animals. This, along with their youth at the time of offence, warranted reduction in sentence.
Conclusion
- Conviction of the appellants under Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act was affirmed.
- Sentence reduced to three years simple imprisonment and ₹25,000 fine each.
- Failure to pay the fine would attract an additional three months of incarceration.
- Fine to be deposited with the Animal Welfare Board of India.
Implications
This judgment reiterates the balance courts must strike between strict enforcement of wildlife protection laws and upholding fundamental rights of the accused through adherence to fair investigation and evidentiary standards. The Supreme Court emphasized:
“Any infringement on the life and liberty of an accused should only be countenanced when the prosecution meets the standard… of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
It also reflects judicial sensitivity to conservation goals while recognising flaws in investigative processes.