Case Note & Summary
The case involves three revision applications filed by Vinod Diwakar Sontakke, Kuldip Madhukar Chaudhari, and Shridhar Kawadu Yerawar against their conviction under Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The applicants were convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli on 04.09.2018 and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 each. Their appeals were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli on 17.06.2023. The prosecution case was based on a complaint by PW-1 Mohan Naikwade, Assistant Conservator of Forests, who received secret information on 20.01.2014 about possession of leopard skin at village Chamorshi. A raid was conducted and leopard skin was allegedly recovered from the applicants. The High Court found that the seizure was not witnessed by any independent person from the locality, and the prosecution witnesses were all forest officials. The court noted that the evidence of seizure was unreliable and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the revision applications, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the applicants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Wild Life Protection - Conviction under Section 9 read with Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Possession of Leopard Skin - The court considered whether the conviction was sustainable when the seizure of leopard skin was not witnessed by independent persons and the prosecution witnesses were interested. Held that the evidence of seizure was unreliable and the accused were entitled to acquittal. (Paras 3-10) B) Evidence Law - Seizure Witness - Independent Witness - The court held that the failure to join independent witnesses from the locality, despite their availability, casts doubt on the prosecution case. The evidence of official witnesses alone is insufficient to prove recovery beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 8-10) C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - The court held that where the prosecution fails to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicants under Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is sustainable in the absence of independent witnesses and reliable evidence of seizure.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision applications, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the applicants of the offence under Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Law Points
- conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt
- seizure must be witnessed by independent witnesses
- benefit of doubt to accused
- strict proof of recovery of wild animal article
