Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs State Of Assam on 22 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010123602014
2025:GAU-AS:14378
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./108/2014
BIJOY ROY and ANR.
S/O LT. MAHESWAR ROY, R/O VILL.NO.2 BOWLAJAR, P.S BIJNI, DIST.
CHIRANG
2: MR. MAJEN BASUMATARY
S/O SRI JATIN BASUMATARY
R/O VILL. NO.2 DOWA CHAURANG
P.S. BIJNI
DIST. CHIRANG
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S BHUYAN, MRA KUNDU
Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/7
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 22.10.2025 Heard Mr. A. Kundu, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor, Wildlife, appearing for the State Respondent.
2. The present appeal has been instituted assailing the Judgment dated 05.12.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon, in Sessions Case No.91(B)/11, convicting the appellant, herein, under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3(three) years along with payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) each in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 6(six) months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.11.2010 at about 10.00 a.m, while the complainant namely, Arindra Kakati, along with his staff and one member of Panbari Manas National Park Protection and Eco Tourism, were performing patrolling duty, they received information that the appellant no.1, herein, had kept meat of deer in his house. Accordingly, the complainant along with his party proceeded to the house of the appellant no.1, and, caught the appellant along with the appellant no.2 along meat of deer weighing 3 ½ kg. It is projected that on being asked, the appellants, herein, had confessed that they had purchased the meat from the house of one Ena Bodo for eating. The meat of dear was seized and the Page No.# 3/7 appellants, herein, were brought to the forest office and subsequently forwarded to the Court.
Thereafter, the offence report for violation of Sections 9, 27 and 29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was laid.
The learned SDJM(M), Bijni, thereafter committed the case for Trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon. The matter was thereafter transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon, for disposal. During the Trial charge under Section 51 of the Act of 1972, was framed against the appellants, herein, and the same on being read over and explained to them, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a Trial ensued.
The prosecution during the Trial examined 4(four) witnesses and thereafter, the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC.
On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court vide Judgment dated 05.12.2013, proceeded to convict the appellants, herein, under Section 51 of the Act of 1972. On their such conviction they were sentenced as noticed hereinabove.
Being aggrieved the appellants have instituted the present proceedings.
4. Mr. A. Kundu, learned counsel for the appellants, has at the outset submitted that the prosecution during the Trial had miserably failed to connect the meat so seized, to relate to any one of the animal as mentioned in the Schedule to the Act of 1972. He had further submitted that no opinion of an expert either Forensic Expert Page No.# 4/7 and/or of Veterinary Expert was received by the prosecution with regard to the nature of the meat so seized from the possession of the appellants, herein. Mr. Kundu, has submitted that during the Trial, the appellants, herein, had taken a plea that no meat of deer was seized from their possession. Mr. Kundu, in the above premises submits that the presumption permissible to be drawn under the provisions of Section 57 could not have been drawn in the present case, inasmuch as, it was not established during the Trial that the meat purportedly seized from the appellants was relatable to any one of the animal so set out to the provisions of the Schedule to the Act of 1972.
5. Per contra, Mr. B. Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor, Wild Life, submits that the evidences coming on record during the Trial having demonstrated the seizure of meat of deer from the appellants, herein, and the same not being disputed, the presumption being permissible to be drawn under Section 57 of the Act of 1972, the same having being drawn by the learned Trial Court, and the appellants, herein, having not rebutted such presumption permissible to be drawn, the impugned Judgment dated 05.12.2013 would not mandate any interference from this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
7. The prosecution witnesses deposing in the matter had brought on record the fact that on 20.11.2010, on a raid being made in the house of the appellant no.1, herein, deer meat weighing 3 ½ Kgs were seized from the possession of the appellant no.1 and appellant no.2 was also present, therein. The said evidence also brings to the Page No.# 5/7 forefront that the appellants, herein, have confessed to have purchased meat of deer from one Ena Bodo for consumption. The evidence also reveals that the appellants, herein, at the time the raid carried out were found to be sitting in the courtyard sharing the deer meat. The learned Trial Court upon noticing the evidences coming on record, proceeded to notice the provisions of Section 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Thereafter by holding that the same permits a presumption to be drawn in the matter, and further that the appellants, herein, could not rebut the presumption laid down under Section 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, proceeded to convict the appellants, herein.
8. This Court has carefully perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court in the matter. The provisions of Section 57 of the Act of 1972, being relevant, the same is extracted, hereinbelow ;
"57. 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 [wild animal, captive animal), animal article, meat, "[trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part or derivative thereof] or scheduled specimen] 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 wild Page No.# 6/7 animal, captive animal), animal article, meat "[trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part or derivative thereof] [or scheduled specimen]."
9. A perusal of the said provisions would go to reveal that the presumption as provided, therein, would be permissible to be drawn by the prosecution only upon establishment that a person was in possession, custody or control of any wild animal, captive animal, animal article, meat etc or any Scheduled plant or Scheduled Specimen. It further provides that the presumption is rebuttable by the accused.
10. In the present case no scientific evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate that the meat purportedly seized from the possession of the appellant no.1, in the presence of the appellant no.2, belongs to one of the animal as specified in the schedule I to the Act of 1972. In absence of a scientific report pertaining to the nature of the meat so seized, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot be conclusively held that the meat so seized from the appellants, herein, was infact meat of deer. The fact that the meat so seized being of deer, not being established, in the further considered view of this Court, the presumption permissible under Section 57 of the Act of 1972, cannot be drawn in the facts of the present case.
11. In view of the above conclusion, this Court is of the considered view that the offence alleged against the appellants, having not been established beyond reasonable doubt, their conviction under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act of 1972 would not be Page No.# 7/7 maintainable.
12. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment dated 05.12.2013 stands set aside and the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
13. Registry to send down the records of the case to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant