Conviction under Wild Life Protection Act for possessing scheduled animal articles upheld based on reliable evidence of conscious possession, irrespective of investigational lacunae in tracing the source or intended buyer.

2025 INSC 705

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

RAJESH ETC.

Vs.

UNION OF INDIA ETC.

( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )

Criminal Appeal Nos. ….. of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 4650-4651 of 2024]

Decided on : 15-05-2025

Conviction under Wild Life Protection Act for possessing scheduled animal articles upheld based on reliable evidence of conscious possession, irrespective of investigational lacunae in tracing the source or intended buyer.

A. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — Section 49-B — Prohibition of dealing in trophies, animal articles etc. derived from scheduled animals — Seizure of tiger skin, antler horns, claws, teeth, bones, and skulls from accused in a car in the presence of independent witnesses — Evidence of uninterested neutral witnesses (Petrol Pump Manager and officer requisitioned from Labour Commissioner) corroborating recovery and arrest at the spot — Substratum of witness testimonies not dislodged in cross-examination — Conviction upheld despite investigational lacunae regarding supplier and buyer. (Paras 4, 6, 14, 22)

B. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — Section 51 — Penalties — Conviction upheld for possession of prohibited articles from scheduled animals — Quantum of sentence — Maximum sentence is 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 51 — Need for strict approach to wildlife preservation due to diminishing habitat — However, accused were young at the time of offence and not alleged to have poached the animals — Sentences of six years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine reduced to three years simple imprisonment and increased fine of Rs.25,000/- each considering the facts and circumstances. (Paras 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24)

C. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — Section 57 — Presumption — Presumption operates against appellants for possessing prohibited articles — Appellants’ liability for possessing scheduled animal products not absolved despite vague investigation regarding supplier and buyer. (Para 13, 20)

D. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — Section 120B read with Sections 49-B and 51 (as per complaint under Section 55) — Criminal Conspiracy and Prohibition of dealing in and penal provisions for possessing wildlife articles — Conviction for possessing scheduled animal products upheld despite vague investigation regarding supplier and buyer. (Para 6, 22)

E. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Standard of Proof — Proof beyond reasonable doubt — Infringement on life and liberty of accused requires prosecution to meet this standard — While importance of wildlife preservation is acknowledged, this standard remains crucial and conviction is sustained on evidence of recovery and arrest in presence of reliable witnesses. (Para 19, 22)

F. Investigation — Duty of Investigating Agency — In matters involving recovery of illegal wildlife products, duty to connect recovery to supplier and buyer, as well as ensuring full and proper forensic tests — Investigational lacunae noted regarding tracing supplier (“Madhu”) and identifying perspective buyers, and age of animal products not determined — However, these lacunae do not fully aid the appellants when conscious possession is proved by reliable independent witnesses. (Paras 12, 20, 21)

G. Evidence — Independent Witnesses — Reliability — Testimonies of independent witnesses (Petrol Pump Manager and officer from Labour Commissioner) who were present during seizure and arrest and were not part of the trap team are reliable and corroborate the recovery of prohibited articles from the accused. (Paras 4, 22)

H. Practice and Procedure — Quashing of Proceedings — Not applicable as the case proceeded to conviction and appeals were heard — However, the Court acknowledged potential grounds for challenging the quality of investigation. (Relevant concepts discussed in Para 20)

I. Interpretation of Statutes — Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — Statement of Objects and Reasons — Highlights the rapid decline of wildlife, outdated laws, inadequate punishments, and need to address taxidermy and trade in wildlife products beyond just controlling hunting — Reinforces the importance of strict approach by authorities in cases of established guilt. (Paras 17, 18)

J. Sentencing — Mitigating Circumstances — Youth of accused at the time of offence, and no allegation of personal poaching, considered as mitigating factors justifying reduction in sentence despite the serious nature of the crime. (Paras 14, 23)

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Muzammil Hussain, Advocate, Mr. Raju Sonkar, Advocate, Mr. Kanisk Mor, Advocate, Mrs. Shweta Sand, Advocate and Mr. Rajat Joseph, Advocate, for the Petitioners; Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate, Mrs. Chitrangda Rashtaravara, Advocate, Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Advocate and Ms. Shreya Jain, Advocate, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate, for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. – Leave granted.

2. The present appeals assail the Final Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2023 in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 82 and 83 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) passed by a learned Single Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the revision petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed and Judgment dated 23.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Sessions Court’) in Criminal Appeal Nos. 88 and 97 of 2007 was upheld.

FACTS:

3. Secret information was received by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Unit No.II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CBI’) that appellant-Makbool Ahmed [appellant in the appeal arising from SLP (Criminal) No. 4651/2024, hereinafter referred to as ‘Accused No.1’] and Rajesh [appellant in the appeal arising from SLP (Criminal) No. 4650/2024, hereinafter referred to as ‘Accused No.2’] were indulging in illegal trade of tiger skin and wild animal products. The information was to the effect that the appellants were likely to deliver huge quantity of the illegal skin and products to some unknown persons in Nagpur, Maharashtra in the 3rd week of March, 2001. Based on this information, a CBI team, headed by PW4/Mr. A. K. Bassi, Inspector, reached Nagpur and maintained regular contacts with the source. On 21.03.2001, the source informed the CBI team that both accused were likely to deliver huge quantity of tiger skin and wild animal products to some unknown person(s) at about 16:40 hours at M.H.S.K. Mohammad Ali Petrol Pump, Kamptee Road, Nagpur in a Maruti-make car. Accordingly, two independent witnesses were requisitioned by way of a written request by PW4 to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), CGO Complex, Nagpur and Executive, Patent Information System, CGO Complex, Nagpur, seeking two officers. The Regional Labour Commissioner made available the services of Mr. K.G. Sadawarte and Mr. Umesh Bhosale/PW2, respectively.

4. On even date, PW4, Inspector Jagdish Prasad/PW6 and other staff gathered in the local CBI office, where PW4 briefed Mr. Sadawarte and PW2 about the secret information, and all left for the spot at about 14:45 hours. They reached near the M.H.S.K. Mohammad Ali Petrol Pump at about 15:15 hours. Around 16:30 hours, the source contacted PW4 and pointed to a silver-coloured Maruti Esteem car bearing Registration No.MH-18/C-833 parked in the premises of M.H.K.S. Petrol Pump and informed that the accused were sitting in the car. Immediately, PW4, the CBI staff and the independent witnesses intercepted the said Maruti Esteem car and disclosed their identity to the suspects. In the meantime, a congregation of people had gathered on the spot. PW4 requested one amongst the general public to act as a panch to the proceeding. The Manager of the Petrol Pump named Mr. Rambabu Mangruji Kuthe/PW1 offered to act as a witness. On inquiry, the respective accused disclosed their identities. During the search, it was found that Accused No.1 was sitting on the driver seat of the car and one tiger skin was kept on the front seat of the car, while Accused No.2 was sitting in the rear seat of the car in possession of antler horns, 10 claws and 3 teeth appearing to be of a tiger. When they opened the dicky of the car, they also found gunny bags containing 23 kg of tiger bones, 5 tiger skulls weighing about 2.4 kg and antler horns weighing 1.9 kg. The tiger skin and the wildlife articles were numbered and put in a white-clothed wrapper by obtaining the signatures of the accused, witnesses and CBI officials. The gunny bags were sealed, and the CBI team prepared the Recovery Memo. The said seal was then handed over to Umesh Bhosale (PW2). Rough site map was prepared on the spot, and the proceedings continued till 20:40 hours, whereafter the CBI seized the Maruti Esteem car and arrested the accused on the spot.

5. The next day viz. on 22.03.2001, First Information Report vide Crime No.RCS IB2001E0002 was registered under Sections 49-B read with Section 51 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the accused. Investigation was handed over to Mr. Shekhar Ravindranath Bajaj/PW13 (Investigating Officer). In the course of investigation, the seized case property was sent to the Director, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun for obtaining expert opinion.

6. The expert, on analysis, opined that most of the case property is of scheduled wild animals such as tiger, panther, leopard, hyena, and chital. After completion of investigation, PW13 submitted the investigation paper(s) before the Deputy Superintendent of Police/PW12. Upon examining the said paper(s) and after going through the record, PW12, being an officer authorised under the Act, filed a complaint being Criminal Case No. 236/2001 under Section 55 of the Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CJM’) on 21.12.2001, stating that there was ample evidence to prove that both accused, in connivance with each other, brought the seized articles and were caught red-handed in illegal possession of the seized articles, in presence of independent witnesses at M.H.S.K. Mohammad Ali Petrol Pump, Kamptee Road, Nagpur and hence, committed offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) read with Sections 49-B and 51 of the Act.

7. On 09.04.2007, the CJM, on consideration of the evidence, found the same sufficient to prove and sustain the charges against the accused. Accordingly, the CJM convicted and sentenced both accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years under Sections 49, 49-B and 51 of the Act and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each and in default of payment of the fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

8. The Sessions Court on 23.05.2013 dismissed Criminal Appeal Nos. 88/2007 and 97/2007 filed by the accused against Judgment dated 09.04.2007 passed by the CJM. The conviction and sentence of the appellants has been confirmed by the High Court in revisionary jurisdiction by way of the Impugned Judgment.

APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSIONS:

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per the prosecution witnesses, though four persons were apprehended by the CBI officers, two persons were allowed to go free. It was urged that, therefore, the case set up by the CBI, that only two persons were found in the car and were apprehended, is doubtful.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was discrepancy in the way trap proceeding, followed by the alleged seizure, was conducted. It was submitted that PW2 had stated that a silver-coloured car came in his presence to the Petrol Pump, whereas the case of the prosecution is that the car was already at the Petrol Pump prior to the arrival of the raiding team. Learned counsel contended that this will be a vital aspect casting doubt on the veracity and reliability of the trap, for the reason that if the vehicle was already present in the parking space at the Petrol Pump, then the time taken for the CBI team to assemble and then go to the Petrol Pump, which as per the trap team, itself was within half an hour’s reach, there is no explanation as to why the persons who were slated to come to collect the incriminating products never turned up, nor did the team wait for the supposed buyer(s) to turn up, as the specific information was that illegal products were going to change hands.

11. It was submitted that as per the version of the trap team, they left at 14:45 hours for the Petrol Pump and reached there at 15:15 hours. At 16:30 hours, only upon the information provided by the source, the trap team confronted the appellants and made the seizure. Learned counsel contended that even here, there is divergence and contradiction in the prosecution case itself, inasmuch as, according to one version, it is stated that the appellants were caught from the car, whereas the other version is that they had run away and then four persons were caught, amongst which two were released after questioning but the appellants were caught. Thus, it was contended that if the appellants had run away, the whole nature of conducting of the trial would change as the recovery would not be from their conscious possession, whereas if they were caught in the car, then the recovery could be said to have been from conscious possession. Learned counsel submitted that the three Courts below have absolutely not considered this vital aspect which was sufficient to raise serious doubts. It was urged that this deficiency would merit grant of benefit of doubt to the appellants.

12. Furthermore, learned counsel submitted that whenever products made/comprising wild animals are recovered, the first and foremost course of action for the investigation agency is to connect the recovery to the supplier of the said material(s). In the present case, only a vague statement is made that the appellants disclosed that supplier was one Madhu, but the said person could not be traced out by the prosecution. Thus, besides the supplier, the place from where it was procured has also not been gone into and most importantly, the person(s) to whom the materials were intended to be sold is not even mentioned in the entire investigation.

13. It was the submission that the time-gap of almost two hours when the trap team got information of the silver-coloured car being parked in the parking lot of the Petrol Pump and the actual raid conducted by them, there was no explanation as to why the appellants should have stayed and waited when nobody turned up to collect the so-called animal goods. Thus, learned counsel contended, in the normal course of events when such huge quantity of illegal animal products were in the car, the appellants, if involved, would not have waited for such long period as such transactions would happen quickly, so as to prevent any unexpected interception.

14. Learned counsel, in the alternative, argued that if the Court does not find favour with the submissions canvassed on the point of benefit of doubt, then, at the very least, reduction in quantum of sentences be considered, as the appellants were young at the time of the alleged offence(s).

15. Learned counsel submitted that this Court may consider imposing lesser sentence as prescribed under the Act i.e., of 3 years, in case we were not inclined to acquit the accused by overturning the Impugned Judgment.

RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS:

16. No counter-affidavit was filed. Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that the Courts below have considered the issues arising herein from all possible angles, rightly recorded conviction and handed down sentence. It was also submitted that in the facts of the case, where there has been huge recovery of illegal animal products and in view of the need to ensure proper preservation of wildlife, the maximum sentence of 7 years ought to have been awarded, but the Courts below took a lenient view, by awarding only six years’ Rigorous Imprisonment to the appellants. It was advanced that the appeals be dismissed.

ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:

17. We have considered the matters in its entirety. We have examined the background facts and circumstances of the case(s) and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. A few prefatory words are in order. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act makes for telling reading, even today:

18. The present lis concerns offences under the Act. It need not be over-emphasised that in the present times, the area left open to the wildlife ecosystem is diminishing everyday due to massive urbanisation, colonization, industrialisation and land-use for various commercial purposes, the threat of wild life, flora and fauna, vanishing and even becoming extinct is real and not imaginary. Thus, no doubt, a very strict approach is required to be taken by the concerned Governments and authorities. If guilt of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt for any offence under the Act, the punishment meted out should be appropriate and commensurate to the offence, as laid down in the Act .

19. However, having stated the above, the standard of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ still holds the field. Any infringement on the life and liberty of an accused should only be countenanced when the prosecution meets the standard supra.

20. In the present scenario, much can be said about the vague investigation which shows that it has been open-ended without delving into the relevant aspects which were necessarily required to be gone into. Going by the prosecution version, huge quantity of banned/illegal animal products having been recovered, it would obviously mean that there would have been a supplier (either the ‘Madhu’ adverted to earlier, or someone else) of the seized products, and prospective buyer(s), since the prosecution itself stated that the products were to be handed over to some other person. What we can gather is that the CBI team did not have the patience to wait for the transaction to reach its logical conclusion, as the interception of only the accused took place. With regard to the supplier, it is apparent that no investigation in this behalf was pursued by the CBI. It has not even been indicated as to how the appellants were involved with and had links with the trade. Pausing for a moment, we would like to clarify that this does not absolve the appellants of their liability of discharging the presumption operating against them by virtue of Section 57 of the Act. Even the Forensic Report prepared by the Wildlife Institute of India only mentions that the material belonged to tiger, panther, leopard, hyena, chital but the age of the animal products was not determined.

21. This, in our view, indicates a casual approach in conducting the investigation. It is gainsaid that in matters of the like herein, the first and foremost duty is on the investigators, including the responsibility of ensuring full and proper forensic tests as also in-depth investigation which encompassing all possibilities, such that the chain of events from the beginning till the end is complete. Be that as it may, the above lacuna do not fully aid the appellants. The reason we say so follows below.

22. From the testimonies of the witnesses, it is clear that the appellants were arrested on the spot. Further, recoveries were made from the appellants in the presence of PW1 and PW2 who were independent witnesses and unconnected with the trap team. PW1 and PW2 were not part of the CBI team. As noted hereinabove, PW2 had been nominated by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur at the request of the CBI. Mr. Rambhau Mangruji Kuthe/PW1 was the Manager of the Petrol Pump. As such, they can be termed uninterested neutral witnesses. On the anvil of the materials which have surfaced during trial, especially the depositions of the witnesses, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in connecting the recovery of the materials to the appellants. PW1 and PW2 were subjected to cross-examination, but the substratum of their testimonies has not been dislodged. Thus, the convictions do not require to be interfered with and stand affirmed.

23. Coming to the quantum of sentence, 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 whose bones/claws/antlers/products were recovered. Viewed thus, we are inclined to reduce the period of the sentences awarded by the Courts below.

24. Accordingly, while upholding and affirming the convictions, the Impugned Judgment is modified by substituting the sentences awarded to the appellants under Section 51 of the Act with three years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) each, to be paid within eight weeks from the date of this Judgment. Failure to pay the fine shall result in further incarceration for three months.

25. The appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount with Secretary, Animal Welfare Board of India, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying (Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying), 42 KM Stone, Delhi-Agra Highway, National Highway-2, Village Seekri, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana – 121004. A copy of this Judgment be sent to the above mentioned officer by the Registry.

26. These appeals stand partly allowed pro tanto.

27. I.A. No. 152418/2023, seeking exemption from filing Certified Copy of the Impugned Judgment, is allowed.