Rajesh vs Union Of India

2025 INSC 705 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.4650-4651 OF 2024]

RAJESH ETC. …APPELLANTS A1: RAJESH in Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No.4651 of 2024) A1: MAKBOOL AHMED in Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4650 of 2024) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ETC. …RESPONDENTS R1: UNION OF INDIA in Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No.4651 of 2024) R1: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA in Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4650 of 2024)

J U D G M E N T

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Leave granted.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2025.05.15 18:22:31 IST

2. The present appeals assail the Final Judgment and Order dated Reason:

06.06.2023 in Criminal Revision Application Nos.82 and 83 of 2013 2

(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 3 rd 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 3

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 4

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

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 6

witnesses at M.H.S.K. Mohammad Ali Petrol Pump, Kamptee Road,

Nagpur and hence, committed offences punishable under Section 120-

B 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 7

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.

8

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 9

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.

10

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 11

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:

‘The rapid decline of India's wild animals and birds, one of the richest and most varied in the world, has been a cause of grave concern. Some wild animals and birds have already become extinct in the country and others are in the danger of being so. Areas which were once teeming with wild life have become devoid of it and even in Sanctuaries and National Parks the protection afforded to wild life needs to be improved. The Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912 (8 of 1912), has become completely outmoded. The existing State laws are not only out-dated but provide punishments which are not commensurate with the offence and the financial benefit which accrue from poaching and trade in wild life produce. Further such laws mainly relate to control of hunting and do not emphasis the other factors which are also prime reasons for the decline of India's wild life, namely, taxidermy and trade in wild life and products derived therefrom.’ 12

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 13

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 14

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 15

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), 16

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.

……………………....................J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

……………………....................J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH] NEW DELHI MAY 15, 2025