[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 March, 2026

                                                             1




                                                                                              NAFR
          Digitally


PRAKASH
          signed by
          PRAKASH
          KUMAR
                                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KUMAR     Date:
          2026.03.30
          11:18:21
          +0530

                                                   CRR No. 543 of 2016
                                            Judgment Reserved on :17/03/2026
                                            Judgment Delivered on :30/03/2026


                       Rajesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Shivanarayan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village
                       Pasal, P.S. Bhaiyathan, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh,
                                                                                        --- Applicant
                                                          versus
                       State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh,
                                                                                     --- Respondent

AND

1 -Sunil Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Pasal P.S. Bhaiyathan District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, 2 - Ramchandra Khairwar S/o Late Dev Sharan Khairwar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Bhanwarkhoh P.S. - Oodgi District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh,

---Applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through In Charge of Police Station - Surajpur, District

- Surajpur Chhattisgarh,

--- Respondent

For Applicant in CRR : Mr. Pawas Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. No.543/2016 Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Applicants in CRR : Ms. Parvati Suryavanshi, Advocate on behalf No.589/2016 of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, CAV Judgment

1. The above captioned revisions arise out of same judgment dated

06.06.2016, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of

by this common judgment.

2. The present applicants have preferred these criminal revisions under

Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(Cr.P.C.) against the impugned order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the

2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, in

Criminal Appeal No.14/2015, arising out of judgment dated

30.09.2015, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District -

Surajpur, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Case No.308/2014 wherein the

accused-applicants have been convicted under Sections 51(1-A) of the

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act of 1972') and

sentenced for R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default

of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months each. The learned

Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused-

applicants. Hence, these revisions.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.01.2014, upon receiving

information from the Crime Branch, Surajpur the investigating officer

prepared informant Panchnama (Ex.P-1). Acting upon the said

information, he informed the forest department and the accused-

applicants who were going on a motorcycle were stopped and on

being searched they were found in possession of the trophy of

endangered scheduled animal i.e. leopard (panthera pardus) to sell

the same. The skin and other items were seized from the accused

persons in accordance with seizure report. Upon returning to the police

station, a case was registered against the accused persons under the

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and, thereafter, further investigation

proceedings were initiated. Statements of the witnesses were

recorded.

4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against

the applicants, who abjured their charge and pleaded non-guilty.

5. Learned CJM and the Appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as

mentioned in the opening paragraphs of this judgment. Hence, these

revisions.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants in both the revisions,

jointly submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate

Court have not properly appreciated the evidence available on record.

They further submit that the two independent witnesses, namely, Nazir

Hussain (PW-01) and Md. Syed (PW-02) have not supported the

prosecution case and have turned hostile. Further, the alleged seized

articles were not kept in safe custody and there is no sample seal

affixed in the seizure memo (Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3). This apart, there is

no copy of malkhana register available on record. They further submit

that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement

of the investigating officer Manak Ram Kashyap (PW-07), as such, his

statement is not reliable. Statements of other prosecution witnesses do

not corroborate with the statements of the investigating officer. On

these premises, it is prayed that the applicants be acquitted of the

charge leveled against them.

7. On the contrary, the learned State Counsel, while opposing the

revisions, submits that on the basis of the statement of the

Investigating Officer and the evidence available on record, the

prosecution has successfully established that the applicants were

found in possession of the skin of a leopard (Panthera pardus), which

is classified as a mammal under Schedule-I of the Wild Life

(Protection) Act, 1972. As such, the findings with respects to conviction

of the applicants and the sentence imposed thereunder, are the

findings being based on evidence and other material available on

record, therefore, no interference is called for and the revisions are

liable to be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and

perused the record.

9. To deal with the contentions made by the parties, it would be apt to

discuss the evidence available on record, particularly, the statement of

the investigating officer of the case, namely, Manak Ram Kashyap

(PW-07). In his examination-in-chief, this witness stated that on

23.01.2014, he received secret information and conducted a raid along

with police personnel and independent witnesses, namely, Md. Syed

(PW-02) and Nazir Hussain (PW-01). He deposed that a black-

coloured Bajaj Platina motorcycle without a registration number was

intercepted near Sirsi Gobari Pool and upon inquiry, the driver

disclosed his name as Sunil Singh, resident of village Pasal; the

second person disclosed his name as Rajesh Tiwari, resident of village

Pasal; and the third person disclosed his name as Ramchandra

Khairwar, resident of village Bhanwarkhoh. He further stated that after

informing them of the received information and on suspicion, a plastic

sack kept on the motorcycle was examined at the spot, from which one

leopard skin was allegedly recovered. He further deposed that the

same was seized and sealed at the spot in the presence of witnesses,

and the seizure memo has been exhibited as Ex. P/02. However, in his

cross-examination, the witness admitted that no goods, belongings, or

property were seized from the possession of the accused,

Ramchandra Khairwar, in the present case. He further admitted that

the seized skin was not sealed, and there is no mention of it being sent

to the forensic laboratory in a sealed condition. When questioned

about the custody of the seized skin from 23.01.2014 to 12.03.2014,

the witness stated that it was deposited at the police station; however,

he admitted that no documentary evidence to this effect has been

produced. He also admitted that a copy of the malkhana register is not

available on record. The witness, however, deposed that on

21.02.2014, the seized leopard skin was sent for examination to the

Director, Wildlife Forensic Laboratory, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, through

the concerned Superintendent of Police. A perusal of his statement

reveals that the Investigating Officer has not clarified that if the seized

skin remained in the police station from 23.01.2014 to 12.03.2014,

then which skin was sent for forensic examination on 21.02.2014. This

inconsistency has not been satisfactorily explained, and thus, material

contradictions and omissions are evident in his testimony.

10. Nazir Hussain (PW-01) and Md. Syed (PW-02) were presented as

independent witnesses to the seizure memo (Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3) and

the informant panchnama (Ex. P-1). Both witnesses stated that no

seizure or panchnama proceedings were conducted in their presence.

However, during cross-examination, they admitted that although they

had signed the said documents, but the accused persons were not

present at the police station at that time. From their testimonies, it

appears that no search or seizure proceedings were conducted at the

spot in their presence. Therefore, their statements do not corroborate

the version of the Investigating Officer. Consequently, they have not

supported the prosecution's case and have been declared hostile.

11. Upon careful appreciation of the evidence on record, it is evident that

the testimony of the Investigating Officer Manak Ram Kashyap (PW-

07) is suffered by material contradictions and omissions, particularly

regarding the seizure and safe custody of the alleged leopard skin, as

he admitted that the seized article was neither sealed nor kept in safe

custody, and in this regard no malkhana register has been produced.

The inconsistency relating to the period during which the seized skin

was allegedly kept in the police station and the date i.e. 21.02.2014 on

which it was sent for forensic examination remains unexplained,

thereby creating serious doubt about the integrity of the seized

property. Furthermore, the independent witnesses (PW-01 and PW-02)

have not supported the prosecution version and have stated that no

seizure or panchnama proceedings were conducted in their presence.

Although the report of the Wildlife Forensic Cell, marked by the Trial

Court as Ex. C-1, indicates that the seized skin was that of a leopard

(Panthera pardus), but no question in this regard was put to the

accused persons in their examination recorded under Section 313

CrPC, which further causes prejudice to the defence. It is a settled

principle of law that any incriminating circumstance not put to the

accused cannot be used against him, and the omission may cause

serious prejudice to the defence. In the matter of Kalicharan and

others vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 2 SCC 583 has

held in para 27 which read as under:-

27. Questioning an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality. The requirement of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that the accused must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so that accused can offer an explanation. After an accused is questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he is entitled to take a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and leading other evidence. If the accused is not explained the important circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, the accused will not be in a position to explain the said circumstances brought on record against him. He will not be able to properly defend himself."

12. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, it is evident that

the vital circumstance relating to the seizure and identification of the

alleged leopard skin was never put to the accused persons during their

examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. This omission significantly

weakens the prosecution case and undermines the credibility of the

alleged recovery. In view of the material discrepancies, lack of

corroboration, and failure to establish the fact that the seized article

was properly sealed and kept in safe custody, the prosecution has

failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable

doubt.

13. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Trial

Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Court, convicting the applicants