Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal revision petition filed by two petitioners (accused Nos. 3 and 4) challenging their conviction under Sections 9 and 39(a) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that on 01.10.2005 at about 9.00 p.m., in the APMC Yard at Kollegala, the petitioners sold a tiger skin to accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were attempting to dispose of it for a higher price. The tiger skin was allegedly brought in a Maruti Omni car parked near Achgal Lodge. Based on credible information, a case was registered against all four accused. The trial court convicted the petitioners, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. In revision, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The only witnesses examined were police officials, and no independent witnesses were present at the time of the alleged recovery. The recovery panchnama was not proved, and there was no evidence to show that the petitioners were in possession of the tiger skin or that they sold it. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable and set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below, acquitting the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Wildlife Offences - Possession of Tiger Skin - Sections 9, 39(a) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 379 IPC - Conviction set aside - The prosecution failed to prove that the petitioners were in possession of the tiger skin or that they sold it - The only witnesses were police officials, and no independent witnesses were examined - The recovery panchnama was not proved - Held that the conviction is unsustainable and the petitioners are entitled to acquittal (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 9 and 39(a) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable in law based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.05.2010 in C.C.No.141/2009 and the confirmation judgment dated 16.06.2014 in Crl.A.No.26/2010, and acquitted the petitioners.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on prosecution
- Presumption of innocence
- Strict proof of possession
- Requirement of independent witnesses
- Credibility of official witnesses
