Delhi District Court
Cbi (Wildlife) vs . Chand Ram Etc. on 19 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GARG: ACMM(SPL.ACTS):
CENTRAL DISTRICT:TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CBI (Wildlife) Vs. Chand Ram etc.
U/s 55 Of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
CC No. 301522/16
JUDGMENT
(a) Date of commission of offence : 12.12.2003
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. R.D. Kalia,DSP, CBI.
(c) Name, parentage, residence : 1. Chand Ram
S/o Sh. Soni Ram
R/o Purana Guhana Road,
Khatik Basti, Harijan Mohalla
PS Chandni Bagh, Panipat,
Haryana.
2. Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Karam Chand
R/o Purana Guhana Road,
Khatik Basti, Harijan Mohalla
PS Chandni Bagh, Panipat,
Haryana.
(d) Offence complained of/ proved : U/s 49&49(B) of Wildlife (P)
Act,1972
(e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(f) Final order : Convicted U/s 49 of Wildlife
(P)Act punishable U/s 51 of the
Act.
(g) Date of such order : 19.04.2017
Date of institution of complaint : 29.04.2004
Arguments heard/order reserved : 05.04.2017
Date of Judgment : 19.04.2017
CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 1 of 20
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1.The complainant/CBI through DSP Sh. R.D. Kalia filed the present complaint u/s 55 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short the 'Act') against the both the accused persons for commission of offence punishable U/s 120B of IPC r/w Sec. 49, 49(B)(1) and 51 of the Act.
2. The facts of the case are that on 12.12.2003 a secret source information was received in the offic3e of CBI to the effect that one Chand Ram S/o Sh. Soni Ram and Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Karam Chand , both R/o Purana Guhana Road, Khatik Basti, Harijan Mohalla, PS Chandni Bagh, Panipat, Haryana are indulged in the illicit trafficking of wildlife skins (leopard) and they are likely to deliver the said skins to some unknown party near Sunder Nagar, New Delhi at about 7.30 pm. The said information was registered in the branch and was entrusted to Sh. A.K. Srivastava, the then Inspector CBI, EOUV, New Delhi for verification. Accordingly, a team consisting of Inspector Sh. A.K. Srivastava, Inspector Khalil Sarvar, Inspector Sanjay Dubey, HC Surendra Panchal and Ct. Om Prakash was constituted and Addl. SP M.C. Sahni was deputed for supervising the work of the CBI team. Presnce of two independent witnesses namely Sh. Jagdish Prashad and Sh. K.C. Chaudhary was secured through written requisition from NTPC Department. The raiding party reached the spot i.e. near JUKASO INN, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi at 6.45 pm. At about 7.20 pm, the source pointed towards the two persons who were standing near the halogen lamp on the left side of JUKASO INN Building. A close watch was kept on the activities of both the persons and thereafter both were intercepted CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 2 of 20 and apprehended by the CBI team. The driver of the hired vehicle namely Sunder Lal was interrogated. Thereafter, four leopard skins were recovered from the bag of the accused Chand Ram and three leopard skins were recovered from the bag of accused Anil Kumar. Both the accused were asked to produce any authority/document or licence to prove bonafide possession of wildlife skins but they did not produce any such document. The skins were marked no. 1 to VII and were converted into two separate pullandas which were sealed with the seal MCS/CBI and were taken into possession. Search of Maruti Esteem bearing registration no. HR 05 G 0978 was also carried out but nothing incriminating was found. Both the accused were arrested. Both the accused were produced before the Court and thereafter, the present complaint was filed after receipt of report from Faculty of Wildlife Science.
3. The accused were summoned. Copies of complaint and of documents were supplied. In precharge evidence, the prosecution examined PW1 Shri Sunder Lal, driver of the vehicle, PW2 Sh. C.P. Sharma, Technician IV, Wildlife Forensic Cell, Dehradun, PW3 Anoop Kumar Srivastava, PW4 Sh. Jagdish Prasad, PW5 SH. Alam Singh, PW6 Sh. M.L. Sharma, PW7 SH. Kailash Chand Chaudhary , PW8 Ms. Neelam Singh, DSP, CBI, PW9 SH. M.C. Sahni, PW10 SH. Khalil Sarvar and PW11 Sh. R.D. Kalia, retired SP (CBI).
4. PW1 Sh. Sunder Lal deposed that he was working as a taxi driver at Karnal. On 12.12.03, accused Anil came to taxi stand and hired him to go to Delhi in connection with some marriage. He further deposed CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 3 of 20 that accused Chand Ram also accompanied him. They kept some luggage in the dicky. They all started from Karnal at 12.30 pm and reached a hotel at Sunder Nagar at 6.30 pm. He further deposed that accused took out two plastic bags/katta which were lying in the dicky. He further deposed that he noticed some rush around the hotel and one inspector asked him about his presence at the spot. He told the inspector that he brought the accused persons from Karnal in his taxi and waiting for the payment. He further deposed that both the accused were carrying one katta which they had loaded in his taxi at Karnal. The case property was opened in presence of the witness in the Court. He further deposed that all the skins were seized and were measured at spot, then sealed. He further deposed that his signatures were obtained in many papers including memo Ex. PW1/A at point A.
5. Thereafter, pulanda markA was opened in the Court and shown to the witness. He identified all the skin. Leopard skin is Ex. P1 and three fake tiger skins are Ex. P2 to P4 and platic katta is Ex.P5. Then another pulanda MarkB was opened and shown to the witness. Witness identified the skins Ex. P6 to P8 and katta Ex. P9.
6. PW2 Sh. C.P. Sharma deposed that he was working in the Wildlife Institute, Dehradun as a technician IV3. He further deposed that a letter Ex. PW2/A dated 17.12.13 of Sh. J.P. Verma, SP, CBI requesting examination of case property was received alongwith case property on 18.12.03. He further deposed that the case property contained two cloth packets marked as A and B. He further deposed CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 4 of 20 that packet A was found containing four skins while packet B was found containing three skins. Thereafter, analysis of the skins were conducted by him which is based on the physical characteristics, microscopic hair characteristics and matching with reference samples. He further deposed that it was concluded that one skin in packet A marked as 517/A4 and one skin in packet B marked as 517/B3 are of leopard while other skins are fake skins. He further deposed that after examination, he prepared the report and after verification by his immediate boss Dr. S.P. Goel, the witness prepared the final report Ex. PW2/B and sent to SP, CBI under the signatures of Dr. A.J.T. Johnsingh Dean which the witness identified in the Court. He also identified the case property in the Court. This witness was cross examined at length by Ld. defence counsel wherein he denied various suggestions given to him and stood the test of veracity.
7. PW3 Sh. Anoop Kumar Srivastava deposed that he was on deputation to CBI during the relevant period and on 12.12.03 he received an information that accused Chand Ram and Anil Kumar both R/o Purana Gohana Road, Khatik Basti, Harijan Mohalla Panipat are indulging in the illicit trafficking of wildlife skins and are likely to deliver huge quantity of the same to someone near JukasoInn Sunder Nagar. He further deposed that he reduced the information in writing and submitted the same to SP, CBI who entrusted the information to him to verify. Accordingly he constituted a team including Inspt. Khalil Server, Inspt. Sanjay Dubey. SP, CBI also instructed Sh. M.C. Sahni Addl. SP to supervise the verification proceedings. He also sought services of two CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 5 of 20 independent witnesses Sh. Jagdish Prasad and SH. K.C. Chaudhary who reported to Mr. Sahni. He further deposed that all the team members including the two independent witnesses were briefed by him and accordingly at 18.30 hrs, all the team members including the independent witnesses proceeded towards the spot after the vehicle and the team members were searched by independent witnesses. He further deposed that at around 18.40 hrs all the team members reached JucasoINN in Sunder Nagar and at round 7.20 pm, the source pointed towards the suspects Chand Ram and Anil Kumar who were standing near Halogan lamp. The moments of the suspects were watched for 15.20 mins. He and other team members then cordoned the suspects and disclosed their identities to them. Accused Chand Ram was asked to show the contents of the gunny bag in which four wildlife skins were recovered. He further deposed that accused Chand Ram was failed to produce valid licence, documents to prove the bonafide possession of the skins marked 1 to IV. The skins were measured at the spot. The witness identified both the accused in the Court. He further deposed that upon his instruction, the taxi driver Sunder Lal was interrogated by Inspt. Khalil Sarwar and came to know from him that the vehicle was hired by both the accused. He further deposed that public persons refused to join the investigation citing personal reasons. He further deposed that a rough site plan was prepared at the spot and thereafter, the accused were arrested on the ground of illegal possession of wildlife animal skins. The witness also proved the letter sent for requisition of independent witnesses as Ex. PW3/A, personal searchcumarrest memo of accused Chand Ram and Anil Kumar as Ex. PW3/B and Ex.
CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 6 of 20 PW3/C, receipt of handing over seal Ex. PW3/D, two facsimile of seal Ex. PW3/E and PW3/F and rough site plan Ex. PW3/G. He further proved special report dated 13.12.03 Ex. PW3/H, direction for registration of case Ex. PW3/I . Thereafter, this witness identified the case properties in the Court. This witness was crossexamined at length by Ld. defence counsel.
8. PW4 Sh. Jagdish Prasad is an independent witness. He deposed that he was working in NTPC as Senior Assistant Vigilance department. He further deposed that on 12.12.2003 he was asked by his senior officer to reach CBI office at 4.00 pm. Accordingly he reached CBI office and a team consisting of Inspt. Khalil Server, Inspt. Sanjay Dubey and A.K. Srivastava and other team members were constituted for the purpose of conducting raid under the supervision of Addl. SP (CBI) SH. M.C. Sahani who asked him to conduct their personal search whereupon nothing was recovered from the raiding party. He further deposed that the team left CBI office at 6.30 pm and reached the Jukaso INN, Sunder Nagar, N. Delhi at about 6.45 pm. He further deposed that Sh. K.C. Chaudhary, Asstt. Vigilance from NTPC department, also accompanied them to the spot. He further deposed that he saw two persons carrying plastic gunny bags standing near the lamp post. A source informer pointed out the raiding party regarding the two suspects and then the raiding party cordoned the said two suspects. He further deposed that on enquiry, the suspects told them that they were waiting for some person and they have come from Haryana. Later on, the driver of the vehicle in which they travelled, was also called at CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 7 of 20 the spot. He further deposed that search of both the accused were taken by the raiding party and four skins of animal were recovered from the search of first person whose name the witness could not remember and from the search of second person namely Anil Kumar, three animal skins were recovered. He further deposed that measurement of the said skins were taken at the spot. Public persons including receptionist of Jukaso Inn were gathered but refused to join the raid.The said skins were packed in two separate bags which were sealed and at about 10.30 pm, both the said suspects were arrested. He further deposed that investigating officer prepared various documents and obtained his signatures on all the documents. The witness identified the case property in the Court. He further deposed that nothing was recovered from the Maruti Esteem car. This witness was crossexamined at length by Ld. defence counsels for both the accused.
9. PW5 Alam Singh was Malkhana Incharge, CBI, EOU, Delhi during the relevant time. He deposed that inspector A.K. Srivastava has deposited two sealed samples Mark A and B on 13.12.03. He proved the concerned page Ex. PW5/A of the property register. He further deposed that the sealed packet were remained intact and the seal were not tampered. He further deposed that he had taken those two sealed sampled to Dehradun laboratory on 17.12.03 and the same were taken back by Ct. Mam Chand and kept in malkhana intact condition. He too was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels.
10. Ct. M.C. Sharma was examined as PW6 who deposed that CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 8 of 20 he was directed vide letter Ex. PW6/A issued under the signatures of Sh. J.P. Verma, SP, EOUV, to collect the report pertaining to the case property and the case property by the duty officer EOUV branch, CBI, Delhi. Accordingly, he had taken the letter to wildlife institute, Dehradun and collected the case property and an envelope in a sealed condition and deposited the same in his office. He further deposed that the case property was handed over to the malkhana incharge of EOUV, CBI, Delhi.
11. PW7 Sh. Kailash Chand Chaudhary was an independent witness from Vigilance department, NTPC. He deposed on the lines of PW4 Sh. Jagdish Prasad, another independent witness from NTPC. He deposed about the investigation and proceedings conducted at the spot and proved various memos and documents prepared by the I.O. He further identified the seal Ex. PW7/A on a pulanda which bears the impression MCS/CBI/3/03.
12. PW8 Ms. Neelam Singh, DSP CBI deposed that during 2003, she was posted as Inspector CBI in EOUV. On 13.12.2003 Mr. J.P. Verma the then SP, CBI directed her to take over the investigation of the CBI case RC SIB 2003 E0008 dated 13.12.03 from Mr. A.K. Srivastava, inspector CBI. She identified the signatures of Sh. J.P. Verma on the FIR Ex. PW8/A. She further deposed that she had sent two letters dated 17.12.03 and 15.04.04 to the Director, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun alongwith the case property through SI Alam Singh, malkhana Incharge. She further deposed that she received the report of CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 9 of 20 Wildlife Institute of India alongwith the case property through Ct. M.C. Sharma confirming that two skins marked as sample no. 517/A and 517/B are of leopard (panthera pardus). She further deposed that during investigation, she examined the witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C, which included the members of raiding party, two independent witnesses, malkhana incharge and the driver of the car used by the accused and deposed that all the witnessess corroborated the factum of search and seizure. She further deposed that after completing all the investigation, she handed over all the documents to Sh. R.D. Kalia, then DSP, CBI, EOUV, New Delhi as per the directions of Mr. J.P. Verma, to file the complaint in the competent court. This witness was cross examined by Ld. defence counsels.
13. PW9 Sh. M.C. Sahni deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Addl. SP, CBI, SIUXI and was deputed to oversee the proceedings. He deposed about the investigation and proceedings conducted at the spot and further deposed about the various documents and memos prepared at the spot. He further deposed that the present complaint Ex. PW9/A was filed U/s 55 of the Act, by Sh. R.D. Kalia the then DSP, CBI, EOUV against both the accused. He further proved list of documents, list of witnesses and list of case property which are collectively Ex. PW9/B.
14. PW10 Sh. Khalil Sarvar deposed that he joined CBI branch on 04.04.1997. His testimony is on the lines of PW3 Inspt. Anoop Kumar Srivastava. He deposed that he was the member of the raiding CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 10 of 20 team and deposed about the investigation conducted by the raiding team and deposed about various documents and memos prepared at the spot.
15. PW11 Sh. R.D. Kalia is retired SP (CBI). He deposed that he was empowered to file complaint Under Wildlife (Protection) Act as per notification no. 216/91WL1 dated 07.04.2000, issued by Govt. of India. He identified Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B and deposed that he filed the present complaint in his official capacity.
16. Thereafter, a charge u/s 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, was framed against both the accused on 08.07.2014 for contravention of provisions of section 49 & 49B(1) of the Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
17. All the above witnesses were recalled, and cross examined in postcharge evidence. Prosecution also examined Sh. Sanjay Dubey as CW12 and Sh. A.J.T. John Singh as CW13, in postcharge evidence.
18. CW12 Sh. Sanjay Dubey deposed about all the investigation conducted at the spot.
19. CW13 Sh. A.J.T. Johnsingh deposed that he is working for three NGOs for conservation of wildlife and was served in wildlife Institute, Dehradun. He identified his signatures on Ex. PW2/B and deposed that two bundles of skins were received for examination in the CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 11 of 20 institute. He further deposed that skins were examined in forensic lab by Sh. C.P. Sharma and he forwarded the report issued by Sh.C.P. Sharma.
20. 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. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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 CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 12 of 20 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 eating house.
23. Complainant has to prove that accused Chand Ram and Anil Kumar were found in possession of one leopard skin each (uncured) which they were having for the purpose of trade. Official witnesses have specifically deposed that a team consisting of Inspector Khalil Server, Inspector Sanjay Dubey and A.K. Srivastava and other members were constituted for the purpose of conducting raid and accused Chand Ram and Anil Kumar came at the spot carrying the case property in a taxi. Both accused were apprehended by them and total seven skins were recovered from the bags. Accordingly, they were arrested. Witnesses were cross examined at length by Ld. Defence counsels, but Ld. Defence Counsel could not extract anything from the mouth of these witnesses to support the case of accused. These witnesses have successfully passed the test of cross examination. Further PW2 Sh. C.P. Sharma Technician, Wildlife Forensic Cell also specifically deposed that based on physical characteristics, microscopic hair characteristics and matching with the reference samples, it was concluded that one skin recovered from each accused are of leopard. It is to be kept in mind that the case property is not easily available in the market. PW4 Sh. Jagdish Prasad and PW7 Sh. Kailash Chandra Chaudhary, Independent witnesses testified in detail about their visit to the spot CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 13 of 20 Jukasu Inn, Sundar Nagar on 12.12.2003 and about seizure of 7 skins, arrest of accused persons and about their personal search and also about other facts on the similar lines of the complaint. All the witnesses have correctly identified the accused persons as well as the case property in the Court during their examination. From the report Ex. CW 2/B, it is clear that one skin in each bag are of leopard which are banned under the Act.
24. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of cross examination of the witnesses, Ld. Defence Counsel did not give any suggestion as to why the witnesses are deposing against the accused. Even otherwise, it is not the case of accused that witnesses were inimical towards the accused. Witnesses have totally supported the case of the prosecution regarding the recovery of leopard skins and also they all are corroborating each other on all material aspects and there is no inconsistency contradictions in their statement. Their statements on record are found to be cogent, inspires the confidence of the Court and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Further, minor discrepancies which have been pointed out, I am of the view that they are not of such nature which create infirmity in the complainant's case. I do not find any reason that why complainant would falsely implicate the accused. Further non joining of public witnesses from the spot does not affect the merits of the case specially when efforts were taken in this regard by the raiding team and independent witnesses were joined in the proceedings.
25. At this stage it would be relevant to go through section 57 of CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 14 of 20 the Act which says:
Presumption to be made in certain cases.____ Where, in any prosecution for an offence against this Act, it is 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}.
26. 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. The accused has not lead any evidence to rebut the presumption of Section 57 of the Act. From the cross examination of prosecution witnesses, accused has failed to bring anything on record to rebut the said presumption. Complainant has also complied with the Section 50(4) of the Act wherein any person detained or things seized shall forthwith be taken before a Magistrate.
27. As far as contradictions pointed out in the testimony of complainant witnesses are concerned, minor discrepancies are bound to occur due to lapse of time. However, these discrepancies does not CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 15 of 20 throw away the case of the prosecution as the prosecution witnesses remained consistent regarding the recovery of one leopard skin from the possession of each accused person. Further no ground shown for the false implication of the accused. Reliance can be placed upon in case titled as " Jugendra Singh vs State of U.P., reported in II (2012) CCR 431 (SC)=IV (2012) SLT 244=II (2012) DLT (Crl.) 794 (SC)= AIR 2012 SC 2254, held as under: "The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal efforts of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The Courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 16 of 20 otherwise trustworthy."
28. Further, minor contradictions, if any, are bound to occur due to and individual appreciation and narration of the facts. It is so held in Shankar vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2302 that : "In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observations, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due o mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.
"Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility."
CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 17 of 20 Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions." The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars, i.e, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited."
29. Lastly, this Court is remindful of the dictum of Hon'ble Justice Sh. V.R. Krishna Iyer in the case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973)2 SCC 793 wherein it is held that : "Even at this stage we may remind ourselves of a necessary social perspective in criminal cases which suffers from insufficient forensic appreciation. The dangers of exaggerations devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that the acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the community, demand especial emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs thro' the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 18 of 20 of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then break down and lose credibility with the community. The evil of acquitting a guilty person lightheartedly as a learned author has sapiently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicated 'persons' and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. For all these reasons it is true to say, with Viscount Simon, that "a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent....." In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing enhance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish marginal innocents."
CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 19 of 20
30. Hence, in view of the above findings, I am of the considered opinion that complainant has successfully able to prove that accused Chand Ram and Anil Kumar were found in possession of one leopard skin each. The leopard skin is specified in schedule I of the Act and thus the accused have contravened the provisions of Section 49 of the Act. However no evidence had been led on record to show that they were dealing in leopard skins. Therefore, no offence is made out U/s 49B(1) of the Act against accused persons. Accordingly, both the accused are held guilty and are convicted for the offence U/s 49 punishable U/s 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Case property be confiscated to the State.
Announced in the Open Court on 19th day of April, 2017.
(AJAY GARG) ACMM (Spl. Acts):Central District:
THC: Delhi CBI(WLI ) Vs. Chand Ram CC No. 301522 20 of 20