Delhi District Court
Cbi (Wildlife) vs . Menodeen & Ors. on 3 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT: ACMM(SPL.ACTS):
CENTRAL DISTRICT:TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CBI (Wildlife) Vs. Menodeen & Ors.
U/s 55 Of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
CC No. 512330/16
JUDGMENT
(a) Date of commission of offence : 11.02.2009
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. R.R. Meena, WLI
(c) Name, parentage, residence : 1. Sh. Menodeen
of accused. S/o Sh. Kamdeen
R/o Village Bheron,
P.O. Matter, Teh. Nahan,
Distt. Sirmour,
Himachal Pradesh.
2. Ajay Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Hare Kishan Sharma
R/o 36, Sharma Garden,
Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
3. Gopi Chand @ Bengalia
S/o Sh. Naniya,
R/o. Village Morni ki Dang,
Mooginand District,
Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh.
(Declared P.O. vide order
dated 05.03.2014.)
(d) Offence complained of/ proved : U/s 49&49(B)(1) of Wildlife (P)
Act,1972
(e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(f) Final order : Acquitted
WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 1 of 20
(g) Date of such order : 03.04.2018
Date of institution of complaint : 03.07.2013
Arguments heard/order reserved : 05.02.2018
Date of Judgment : 03.04.2018
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1.The present complaint was filed U/s 55 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (herein referred as Act). Briefly, facts of the present case, that on 11.02.2009 on the basis of secret information accused persons namely Menodeen and Ajay Kumar Sharma were apprehended with five leopard skins which is protected under SchduleI of Wildlife (Protection) Act at Jain Mandir, Budhpur, Alipur, Delhi between 5.00 to 6.00 pm by the raiding team comprising of HC Sanjay Kumar, B.S. Guram Asstt. Director,WCCB and SI Anil Malik besides other staff. It is further stated that on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Menodeen, three leopard skins and twelve karki were also recovered from Himachal Pradesh from the juggi of Gopichand @ Bengalia. The recovered items were produced before the Court in terms of Section 50(4) of Wildlife (Protection) Act.
2. The accused were summoned. Copies of complaint and of documents were supplied. Vide order dated 05.03.2014, accused Gopi Chand was declared proclaimed offender.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined six witnesses.
WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 2 of 20
4. PW1 SI Anil Malik stated that on 11.02.2009 while he was posted as sub inspector in SIT branch, Sector18, Rohini, a secret information was received by HC Sanjay regarding trading and supply of wildlife species skins. He further stated that the secret informer was produced before him who told that two persons from Himachal Pradesh namely Menodeen and Ajay Sharma who were involved in trading of leopard skin will come at Jain Mandir, Budhviha, Alipur. He further stated that the said information was brought to the knowledge of ACP, SIT and same was also shared with officials of WCCB, NR vide DD entry no. 7 Ex. PW1/A. He stated that a joint raiding party was constituted comprising of Sh. B.S. Gurm, HC Sanjay, HC Naresh, CT. Joginder, HC Subhash, Ct. Anil, Ct. Shiv Kumar, Ct. Kuldeep, Ct. Mohd. Abrar who left to the spot in Government gypsy no. DL 1CH 2371 and another vehicle of WCCB no. DL 2CQ 4109. He further stated that at about 5.15 pm, they saw two persons coming from Alipur side carrying plastic bags who were identified by the secret informer and when they came in front gate of Jain Mandir and started moving towards Khera Kalan crossing at his instance the raiding party apprehended the accused. He further stated that both the accused were informed about the purpose of their interception and both refused to search the police party and also admitted that the information with police party is correct. Both stated that they have come to Delhi to supply leopard skins to one party in Sadar Bazar. He stated that he asked passersby to join the investigation but all left without disclosing their name and address. He also stated that from accused Menodeen, one while color plastic bag was recovered having four skins which were measured. He stated that WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 3 of 20 from the green canvas colored bag marked as "Australia" was recovered from Ajay Sharma having one full size skin. He stated that all these skins were identified by Sh. B.S. Gurm as to be of leopard. He stated all the skins were seized in transparent polythene bags marked as SR1 to SR5 which were sealed with the seal of AKM and the case property was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. He stated that he prepared rukka Ex. PW1/D and handed over to HC Subhash Kumar who got recorded the FIR. He stated that he prepared site plan Ex. PW1/E and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/F& PW1/G. He also stated that he recorded disclosure statement of accused persons Ex. PW1/J & PW1/K. Both the accused disclosed about more skins kept at Sirmor, Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, PC remand of accused was taken and on 13.02.2009, accused Menodeen made another disclosure statement Ex. PW1/N who pointed out one jhuggi of Gopi having more skins hidden there. He further stated during search of said jhuggi, three skins were recovered which were also taken into possession and sealed vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/P. He also stated that twelve trappers (karki) were also recovered in a red color shawl which were also vide Ex. PW1/Q. He stated that during such raid, Sh. B.S. Gurm, Sh. Manjeet Jakkhar, Sh. Anirudh and HC Sanjay remained with him and recorded their statements. He further stated that with the directions of Hon'ble Court, case property was handed over to Wildlife Department vide possession memo Ex. PW1/T and PW1/U. He identified the case property as well as the accused persons.
During cross examination he has stated that the call details of mobile phone of accused Ajay Sharma were not taken. He further stated that WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 4 of 20 accused persons could not disclose the name and identity of the person to whom they have come for supply of skins. He stated that they left for Himachal Pradesh on 13.02.2009 and stayed in the Government guest house. He further stated that Ct. Jasbir and a local police accompanied the raiding team but his signatures were not taken in any of the memos. He stated that no public persons were asked to join the raiding party till they reached Jain Mandir. He further stated that HC Sanjay, HC Subhash, HC Surender and HC Shiv Kumar were standing towards Alipur side and he alongwith secret informer and B.S. Gurm were standing on the edge of green divider and remaining two members were standing towards Khera kala side. He stated that at about 10.30 pm, they left the spot and reached SIT Crime Branch where accused were arrested. He stated all the paper work except the site plan was done on his personal laptop for which no certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act is required. He denied the suggestion that no leopard skin were recovered from accused persons and they were not arrested from the spot. He further denied that they have not gone to Himachal Pradesh and nothing was recovered from there.
5. PW3 Sh. B.S. Guram Asstt. Director, WCCB stated that on 11.02.2009 he was directed to join a raiding party for recovery of wildlife animal skin. He stated that he alongwith I.O. and other members proceeded in government vehicle no. DL 2CQ 4109 for the spot. He stated the manner in which the accused were apprehended and case property was recovered. He further stated that he was called by I.O. on 13.02.2009 and thereafter, he alongwith I.O. and another police staff WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 5 of 20 and accused Menodeen proceeded towards Himachal Pradesh and reached on 14.02.2009. He also stated that at instance of accused Menodeen, more leopard skins and iron traps were recovered. He proved the pointing out memo Ex. PW1/O. He also stated the manner in which case property was sealed. He identified the case property in the Court.
During cross examination he stated that accused were coming from the Karnal side in the service lane. He stated the skin was in fold condition and there were no cut mark or hole in the skin and the skins were semi tanned. He stated that all the raiding party members remained at the spot till completion of raid. He stated that police prepared seizure memo on the spot in his presence. He further stated that he left SIT office on 13.02.2009 at 9.00 am for Himachal Pradesh in a vehicle with accused Menodin, SI Anil Malik, HC Sanjay Kumar and a driver. The recovery was effected from jhuggi of Gopi Chand Bengali at Monginand. Accused Gopi Chand was not present in the jhuggi. He further stated that one of the occupant of nearby jhuggi namely Ram Singh was joined the raiding party as a witness. He further stated that he has not taken any photographs of the jhuggi. One local police constable was present with them during the raid and they remained at the spot from about 8.30 to 10.30 am. He further stated that they did not inform the wildlife officials of Himachal Pradesh regarding their arrival or seizure of skins and it was not required to take permission from the local magistrate regarding taking the skins from the spot as their office has jurisdiction over North India which includes Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. He denied the suggestion that he was not the member of WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 6 of 20 raiding team and no skin was recovered in his presence.
6. PW4 HC Sanjay Kumar stated that on 11.02.2009 while he was psoted at SIT Crime Branch, Sector18, Rohini, he received secret information regarding trading and supplying of wildlife species of skins. He produced the informer before his senior SI Anil Kumar Malik who directed him to conduct a raid. He further stated that IO called Mr. B.S. Grum from WCCB and thereafter a raiding team was constituted. He further stated about the manner in which the accused are apprehended, seizure of case property. He further stated that seal after use was handed over to him by the I.O. Thereafter the witness stated about the investigation conducted at Himachal Pradesh. He identified the case property in the Court.
During cross examination, he stated that the secret informer did not disclose about the modus of coming of the accused persons and only told them that the accused are coming from Himachal Pradesh and did not disclose any specific city or place of Himachal Pradesh. He further stated that he did not ask any public person to join the raiding party till the reached Jain Mandir situated on the National Highway no. 1. He further stated that none of the persons present in the temple or working in the temple were required to join raiding party by SI Anil Malik and he did not ask any resident of the houses and shopkeepers of the shop available there and only required the passersby. He further stated that SI Anil Malik gave the signal by raising his hands towards them when he saw the accused persons coming. He could not tell the number of plots fall in between Jain Temple and Budhpur Road. He WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 7 of 20 further stated that no public person was seen in the buildings or plots or the places lying in between Khera kala Road and Budhpur Road. He further stated that the interrogation and writing work was done at the place where the accused persons were surrounded after bringing of official vehicles. He stated Interrogation of accused persons took place on the road and SI Anil Malik conducted the writing work while keeping the papers on the bonut of the gipsy and only one paper i.e. seizure memo was prepared by IO on the spot which bears his signatures. He further stated that the case property was packed in six pullandas. He further stated that the seizure memo was prepared after about two hours of surrounding the accused persons and site plan was prepared after about 3 ½ /4 hours of apprehending the accused persons. He further stated that they all left the spot at about 1.015 pm and IO prepared seizure memo, rukka and site plan and no other writing work was conducted by the IO there. He further stated that personal search memo and arrest memo were prepared by the IO before writing the disclosure statement of the accused persons. He further deposed that he alongwith SI Anil Malik, HC Naresh and accused Menodeen had gone in Innova and rest of the members had gone in Santro. He again said one or two persons were there. He further stated that they reached Kale Aam at about 6.30/7.00 pm after leaving their office at about 9.00 am. He failed to state whether Kale Aam was a village or town or municipality or Tehsil. He stated that IO requested the police officials from the police post of Kale Aam to join them and they went in their vehicle. He further stated that there were three four utensils, 12 trapper/kadkies and one plastic bag containing three leopard skin inside WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 8 of 20 the jhuggi. He failed to state whether IO had prepared the site plan of that jhuggi or not. He stated that on the same day, they reached Delhi at about 7.00 or 7.30 pm and IO prepared the seizure memo at the spot and he signed the same.
7. PW5 ASI Subhash Singh also stated about receiving of information by HC Sanjay and formation of raiding party including officials of WCCB. He identified both the accused persons as well as case property.
During cross examination he admitted that no notice was served to anybody to join the raiding team including the officials of Jain Mandir. He also admitted that due to construction of main high, all the traffic was plying on service lane only. He also admitted that after seeing the police party, accused did not try to flee away. He also stated that no memo of seal handing over was prepared in his presence and no personal search was conducted in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was part of the raiding team and is deposing falsely. In his further cross examination during post charge evidence, he stated that he did not ask any labour working on the road to join the raiding party and accused were apprehended on the right side of the road from the Sonipat side. He failed to state who were standing besides him when accused were surrounded. He further stated that seizure memo was prepared by the I.O. on the laptop and same was printed on HP printer taken by the I.O. He specifically stated that in the seizure memo prepared at the spot, FIR No., section and name of police staff was not mentioned. He admitted that IO has not prepared any certificate WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 9 of 20 U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in his presence. He further stated that when he reached the office of SI Anil Malik four to five members of staff were present but wildlife official was present there. He denied the suggestion put forth by Ld. Defence counsel.
8. PW6 Manjeet Kumar stated that on 13.02.09 and again said on 14.02.09 while he was working with WCCB on contract basis, he was asked to join the raid by Sh. B.S. Gurm and he alongwith Sh. B. S. Gurm left the office and reached PS Crime branch, Rohini. He stated that at about 9.00 am, raiding party comprising Inspector Anil Malik, Ct. Subhash, Ct. Naersh, HC Sanjay and Ct. Surender alongwith Mr. Gurm and himself left with accused Menodeen in two vehicles an reached Distt. Sirmor, Himachal Pradesh on 14.02.2009. He further stated that on arriving at Kalamb, their arrival entry was lodged and one local police official Jasbir Singh also joined the raiding team. He further stated that accused Menodeed pointed towards jhuggi belonging to one Gopichand wherein one plastic bag having marking as "do kainchi" was recovered having leopard skin which were measured, sealed and seized vide Ex. PW1/P. He further stated that he further searched, 12 trappers were also recovered which were also seized vide Ex. PW1/Q. He identifed the case property shown to him.
During cross examination he stated that he alongwith raiding team proceeded for Himachal from Delhi at about 9.00 am on 13.02.09 and reached Himachal at about 67 am on 14.02.09. He further stated that they reached police post Kalamb at about 8.30 am. He failed to recall whether I.O. obtained signatures of local police official Jasbir WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 10 of 20 Singh in the seizure memo or not but stated that he was present at the time of recovery. He admitted that no sarpanch or mukhiya was called to join the proceedings but stated that same was not possible due to location of the jhuggi. He failed to state at what time they left Himachal but stated that they reached Delhi at about 7.30 pm. He denied the suggestion that no case property was recovered in his presence.
9. Wildlife inspector Sh. R.R. Meena was also examined as PW 6/CW6. He be read as CW6A. He stated that he is authorized to file the complaint under Rule 49 of Wildlife (Protection) Rules 1973. He proved his complaint as Ex. PW6/A. During cross examination he stated that the complaint was prepared on the basis of case forwarded by officials of SIT, Sector18, Rohini. He admitted that no efforts were made to verify veracity of facts stated in the complaint but denied that he is deposing falsely.
10. A charge u/s 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, was framed against both the accused on 08.09.2014 for contravention of provisions of section 49 & 49B(1) of the Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. After completion of post charge evidence, statement of both the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C read with section 281 Cr.P.C. on 02.03.2016 wherein they denied the material allegations leveled against them and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case. However, no defence evidence was led.
WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 11 of 20
12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the relevant records. I have also gone through written arguments filed on behalf of parties and relevant provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
13. The relevant provisions of section 49 and 49B(1) are reproduced for ready reference:
49. Purchase of captive animal, etc, by a person other than a licensee. No person shall purchase, receive or acquire any captive animal, wild animal, other than vermin, or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived therefrom otherwise than from a dealer or from a person authorised to sell or otherwise transfer the same under this act.
49B. Prohibition of dealings in trophies, animal articles, etc., derived from scheduled animals. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, on and after the specified date, no person shall,
(a) commence or carry on the business as
(i)a manufacturer of, or dealer in scheduled animal articles; or [ia)a dealer in ivory imported into India or articles made therefrom or a manufacturer of such articles; or]
(ii)a taxidermist with respect to any scheduled animals or any parts of such animals; or
(iii) a dealer in trophy or uncured trophy derived from any scheduled animal; or
(iv) a dealer in any captive animals being scheduled animals; or
(v) a dealer in meat derived from any scheduled animal; or
(b) cook or serve meat derived from any scheduled animal in any eatinghouse.
14. At this stage it would be relevant to go through section 57 of the Act which says:
Presumption to be made in certain cases.____ Where, in any prosecution for an offence against this Act, it is WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 12 of 20 established that a person is in possession, custody or control of any captive animal, animal article, meat, (trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part of derivative thereof} it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, the burden of proving which shall lie on the accused, that such person is in unlawful possession, custody or control of such captive animal, animal article, meat (trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part of derivative thereof}.
15. Hence, as per section 57 of the Act, prosecution has to prove that accused was found in possession/custody or control of any part or deliberately of any animal and until the contrary is proved, which is to be proved by the accused, custody of such person will be treated to be unlawful custody.
16. The presumption U/s 57 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption. The accused may either demolish the said presumption by way of cross examination of complainant witnesses or by way of leading positive evidence.
17. The recovery of alleged leopard skins stated to be recovered from a public place during day time. Hence, it is imperative that the complainant dispel the cloud of suspicion with respect to recovery from the accused persons as section 100(4) Cr.P.C. r/w Punjab Police Rules provides for certain safeguards when a search/recovery is effected from suspected persons.
WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 13 of 20
18. Ld. counsel for the accused argued that there are material contradictions in the testimony of recovery witnesses and in the absence of independent public witnesses, same cannot be relied upon.
19. Admittedly, the site plan was prepared before registration of FIR. However, same bears not only the FIR number but also the offences alleged in the FIR and the said contents of site plan were prepared with the same pen. PW1 has not stated that he put the FIR number later on. The seizure memo Ex. PW1/C is neatly typed document stated to be prepared at the spot which is National Highway. PW1 has stated that the same was prepared on his laptop. But in his examination in chief, he has not stated as to whether while proceeding for raid, he had carried his laptop and the printer for printing the same. It is not been stated that same were already available in the vehicles taken by the raiding party. The source of electricity in which the printer was connected has not been disclosed by any of the witnesses. Even during cross examination, it is not explained how seizure memo Ex. PW1/C has been printed as it is not disclosed that the same was printed at the spot. PW3, PW4& PW5 who were all part of the raiding party have not whispered anything in their examination in chief how the seizure memo was prepared at the spot. On the contrary, PW4 in his cross examination has stated that SI Anil Malik conducted the writing work while keeping the papers on the bonut of the gypsy. He continues to state that only one paper i.e. seizure memo was prepared by the I.O. at the spot after about two hours of surrounding the accused persons. Only WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 14 of 20 PW5 stated in his cross examination that I.O. took his laptop and HP printer with him. It is not the case of complainant that I.O. was carrying portable printer having in built battery which could have been used for printing the seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. This material fact has not been duly explained by the complainant witnesses. Even the rukka is also in printed format. Even in rukka i.e. Ex. PW1/D it is not mentioned how the same was prepared at the spot. PW1 went on to state that no certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is required for personal laptop. I fail to understand under what provision of law such exemption is allowed.
20. The I.O. who have taken the pains to prepare the seizure memo Ex. PW1/C on a laptop while sitting on a National Highway has prepared the Ex. PW1/O, PW1/P,Ex. PW1/Q & PW1/R manually which are the documents allegedly prepared while effecting recovery in Himachal Pradesh. There is no explanation why these documents were not prepared on the laptop.
21. All the witnesses have stated that I.O. asked the passersby to join the investigation but none agreed. It is also stated by witnesses that no written notice was given to any of the public persons and no person from the Jain Mandir or nearby localities was called to join the raid. In the matter of Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Delhi: MANU/DE/2304/2011 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi it has been held that failure of I.O. to join independent witnesses, however by itself cannot be taken as a circumstance to reject the testimony of police officials. But, this calls for a cautious approach on the part of the court while analysing the WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 15 of 20 evidence. In the present case admittedly the recovery was effected from public place and despite sufficient opportunities to call public witnesses from the public gathered at the spot or even the staff from the Jain Mandir could have been called to join the investigation. All the witnesses have stated that no attempts were made to call any person either from the Jain Mandir or from the nearby localities which is having residential area also. The provision U/s 100(4) Cr.P.C. provides that the officer making the search shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality before search is conducted. But, no explanation is given by the I.O. or any of the raiding members that why no one from Jain Mandir or nearby locality was called to witness the search. This also cast shadow of doubt upon the case of complainant as it is the consistent defence of the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated.
22. As per complaint, the accused persons have come to Delhi to deliver the leopard skin to someone in Sadar Bazar. I.O. despite specifically been asked as to whether he has made any efforts to trace the alleged buyer, answered in negative. PW1/CW1 admitted that accused Ajay Sharma was having mobile phone which was taken into possession but no steps were taken by the I.O. to verify the call detail records to reach the alleged buyer. No explanation has been given for such material lapse on the part of I.O. This also cast doubt on the whole story of the complainant.
23. PW3/CW3 stated that all the raiding party members WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 16 of 20 remained at the spot till the completion of raid and no one left the spot which is in contradiction to the case of the complainant as admittedly PW5 has stated that after preparation of the rukka, he went to the police station for registration of FIR and came back after registration of FIR. PW5 further stated in his cross examination that he lef the spot at about 8.30 pm and met the I.O. at SIT office, Sector18 at 11.00 pm. This implies that after leaving the spot with the rukka, he has not come back to the spot with the copy of FIR. This contradiction is also not been explained.
24. PW1 in his cross examination stated that after taking PC remand of the accused Menodeen, they left for Himachal Pradesh on 13.02.09 at about 9.00 am and reached Kalamb at 6.30 pm and stayed in the Government guest house. He also stated that they reported to police chauki, Kalamb on 14.02.09. PW3 also stated the same facts with respect to visit to Himachal Pradesh whereas PW6 stated in his examination in chief that they visited Himachal Pradesh on 14.02.09 and in his cross examination he stated that the raiding party started at 9.00 am on 13.02.09 and reached Kalamb at 8.30 am on the next day. This contradiction with respect to date and time of visit to the Himachal Pradesh was also not explained by the complainant.
25. PW3/CW3 who was the Asstt. Director in WCCB has not stated the basis of his identification of the alleged skins being recovered from the possession of the accused persons. He has simply stated that "I.O. checked the white plastic bag of accused Menodeen and found WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 17 of 20 four leopard skin of full length and he identified the said skins then and there in the presence of I.O. He also stated the same with respect to alleged recovery from accused Ajay Sharma and further recovery from Himachal Pradesh. Admittedly, the complainant has not got conducted the examination of the recovered articles from an expert. Whether PW3 is an expert or not has not come on record. In the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal & Ors. : MANU/SC/0557/1999, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the evidence of a witness becomes expert witness if witness has made special study of subject or acquired special experience and the evidence which is unsupported by any reasons is merely an opinion and same cannot be relied upon. Further in the matter of Ramesh Chander Aggarwal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Anr: MANU/SC/1641/2009 Hon'ble supreme Court held in para 15 that " an expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the judge to form his independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for considertion alongwith other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions." It further held in para 17 that " In the Article 'Relevancy of Expert's Opinion' it has been opined that the value of expert opinion rest on the facts on which it is based and his competency for forming a reliable opinion. The WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 18 of 20 evidentiary value of the opinion of expert depends on the facts upon which it is based and also the validity of the process by which the conclusion is reached. Thus the idea that is proposed in its crux means that the importance of an opinion is decided on the basis of the credibility of the expert and the relevant facts supporting the opinion so that its accuracy can be cross checked. Therefore, the emphasis has been on the data on basis of which opinion is formed. The same is clear from following inference:Mera assertion without mentioning the data or basis is not evidence, even if it comes from expert. Where the experts give no real data in support of their opinion, the evidence even though admissible, may be excluded from consideration as affording no assistance in arriving at the correct value."
26. More so, as per Manual on Wildlife Species in Trade, 1st Edition prepared by Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India, there are procedural guidelines for identifying the wildlife species. Its Preface specifically provides that the agencies may note that similar and mere resemblance cannot be taken as confirmatory. Additional test like morphological, microscopic analytical and forensic tests may have to be undertaken for legal action. It is further provided in the Manual that for identifying the skin of leopard, the hair signature pattern of leopard can be identified if it is having the following pattern: color cremish brown, culticular scale pattern imbricate, medullaContinuous, Medullary Index0.657. Admittedly, in the present case no such test were conducted by the complainant and the above mentioned characteristics were also not WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 19 of 20 proved being found on the recovered skins. The expertise of PW3 in identifying the recovered skins has not come on record. It is common knowledge that nowadays with the advent of new technologies fake skins can be prepared with the help of synthetic fibers which might be having same feel and texture as of a natural skin. In the absence of chemical analysis/forensic examination of the skins, it cannot be said with certainty that the recovered skins were of leopard. The complainant has failed to prove the same.
27. Hence, in view of the above findings, I am of the considered opinion that complainant has miserably failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Menodeen and Ajay Kumar Sharma. Accordingly both are acquitted from the offence U/s 49/49(B)(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Announced in the Open Court on 3rd April, 2018.
(PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT) ACMM (Spl. Acts):Central District:
THC: Delhi WLI Vs. Menodeen CC No. 512330/2016 20 of 20