Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals challenging the conviction of Rajesh and Makbool Ahmed under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for illegal possession of tiger parts and other wildlife products. The CBI had received secret information that the appellants were involved in illegal trade of tiger skin and wild animal products and were likely to deliver a huge quantity in Nagpur. On 21 March 2001, a CBI team intercepted a Maruti Esteem car at a petrol pump in Nagpur, where the appellants were found in possession of a tiger skin, antler horns, claws, teeth, tiger bones, and tiger skulls. The trial court convicted them and sentenced them to six years rigorous imprisonment, which was upheld by the Sessions Court and the High Court. The appellants argued that there were discrepancies in the trap proceedings, including that four persons were apprehended but two were released, and that the car was already parked before the raiding team arrived, casting doubt on conscious possession. The Supreme Court found no merit in these arguments, holding that the recovery was from the conscious possession of the appellants and the discrepancies were not sufficient to create reasonable doubt. However, considering that the appellants were young at the time of the offence and had already served about three years of incarceration, the court reduced the sentence from six years to three years rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine. The court directed that the appellants be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Wildlife Offences - Sections 49, 49-B, 51, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Conscious Possession - Appellants were caught red-handed with tiger skin, bones, skulls, claws, teeth, and antler horns in a car - The court held that the recovery was from the conscious possession of the appellants as they were present in the car and the articles were found in their immediate vicinity - The discrepancies regarding the number of persons apprehended and the timing of the trap were not sufficient to create reasonable doubt - Conviction upheld (Paras 2-8, 17-20).
B) Criminal Law - Sentence - Section 51, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Reduction of Sentence - The appellants were young at the time of the offence and had already undergone about 3 years of incarceration - The court held that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence from 6 years to 3 years rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine - The court directed that the appellants be released forthwith if not required in any other case (Paras 14, 21-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 49, 49-B and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 read with Section 120-B IPC is sustainable in light of alleged discrepancies in the trap proceedings and recovery, and whether the sentence of six years rigorous imprisonment should be reduced.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals regarding conviction but reduced the sentence from six years rigorous imprisonment to three years rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the fine of Rs.5,000/-. The court directed that the appellants be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Wild Life (Protection) Act
- 1972
- Sections 49
- 49-B
- 51
- 55
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Section 120-B
- Conscious possession
- Trap proceedings
- Benefit of doubt
- Sentence reduction
Case Details
Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2025 @ SLP (Criminal) Nos.4650-4651 of 2024
Union of India and State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence for offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal or reduction of sentence.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted for illegal possession of tiger parts and other wildlife products.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted and sentenced to 6 years RI; Sessions Court dismissed appeal; High Court dismissed revision petitions.
Issues
Whether the conviction is sustainable given discrepancies in the trap proceedings and recovery?
Whether the sentence of six years rigorous imprisonment should be reduced?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that four persons were apprehended but two were released, casting doubt on the prosecution case.
Appellants argued that the car was already parked before the raiding team arrived, and the team waited for two hours without any buyer turning up, which is unnatural.
Appellants argued that there was no explanation for the time gap and that the recovery was not from conscious possession.
Appellants alternatively sought reduction of sentence to 3 years as they were young at the time of the offence.
Respondent CBI argued that the courts below had correctly considered all issues and the maximum sentence of 7 years ought to have been awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
The recovery of wildlife products from the car in which the appellants were present constitutes conscious possession. Discrepancies in the trap proceedings do not create reasonable doubt when the core recovery is credible. However, the sentence can be reduced considering the young age of the appellants and the time already served.
Judgment Excerpts
The present appeals assail the Final Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2023 in Criminal Revision Application Nos.82 and 83 of 2013...
Secret information was received by the Central Bureau of Investigation... that appellant-Makbool Ahmed... and Rajesh... were indulging in illegal trade of tiger skin and wild animal products.
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...
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...
The CJM convicted and sentenced both accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years...
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per the prosecution witnesses, though four persons were apprehended... two persons were allowed to go free.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was discrepancy in the way trap proceeding...
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.
Learned counsel, in the alternative, argued that if the Court does not find favour with the submissions... reduction in quantum of sentences be considered...
Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that the Courts below have considered the issues... and handed down sentence.
We have considered the submissions and perused the material on record.
The fact that the appellants were found in the car with the incriminating articles clearly establishes conscious possession.
The discrepancies pointed out by the appellants are not sufficient to create reasonable doubt.
Considering the young age of the appellants at the time of the offence and the time already served, we reduce the sentence to three years rigorous imprisonment.
The appeals are dismissed with the modification in sentence.
Procedural History
Secret information received by CBI on 21.03.2001 led to trap and seizure of wildlife products. FIR registered on 22.03.2001. Complaint filed on 21.12.2001. Trial court convicted on 09.04.2007. Sessions Court dismissed appeals on 23.05.2013. High Court dismissed revision petitions on 06.06.2023. Supreme Court granted leave and heard appeals in 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: 49, 49-B, 51, 55
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 120-B
