Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to two criminal revision applications filed by Makbool Ahmed (accused no.1) and Rajesh Gujar (accused no.2) challenging their conviction and sentence for the offence of criminal conspiracy to trade in tiger skin and wild animal products. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) received secret information that the accused were involved in illegal trade of tiger skin and wild animal products and were likely to deliver a huge quantity in Nagpur in the third week of March 2001. Based on this information, PW4 Inspector A.K. Bassi was assigned to work out the case. On 21.03.2001, the informer indicated that the accused would deliver the items at 16:40 hours at M.H.K.S. Mohd. Ali. A trap was laid, and the accused were apprehended with tiger skin and other wild animal products. The trial court convicted them under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 49, 49-B and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, sentencing them to six years rigorous imprisonment and fine. The appellate court confirmed the conviction. The High Court, in revision, examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had proved the conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the seizure was witnessed by independent panchas and the testimony of official witnesses was credible. The court held that there was no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision applications, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Wildlife Protection - Conspiracy - Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 49, 49-B and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - The accused were convicted for conspiracy to trade in tiger skin and wild animal products based on secret information, surveillance, and seizure of incriminating articles. The court held that the prosecution proved the conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt through credible testimony of witnesses and recovery of wild animal articles. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Seizure - Credibility of Witnesses - The seizure of tiger skin and wild animal products from the possession of the accused was corroborated by independent panch witnesses and official witnesses. The court found no material contradiction or omission in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. (Paras 11-20) C) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope - The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice or perversity. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the accused for the offence of criminal conspiracy to trade in tiger skin and wild animal products under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 49, 49-B and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Both criminal revision applications are dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 49, 49-B and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 are upheld.
Law Points
- Conspiracy
- Wildlife trafficking
- Seizure evidence
- Circumstantial evidence
- Burden of proof
