‘Serious prejudice’: Chhattisgarh High Court frees man found guilty of possessing Leopard skin
Chhattisgarh High Court ruling highlights that incriminating evidence not put to accused cannot be relied upon, setting aside conviction in a leopard trophy possession case.
Chhattisgarh High Court news: While protecting the accused’s right to a fair trial, the Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted a man accused of possessing the skin of a leopard (Panthera pardus), an endangered species, noting that omission of incriminating circumstances cannot be used against the accused as it may cause prejudice to the defence.
The matter came before Justice Radhakishan Agrawal in a revision plea by a man accused in a wildlife offence case, who sought acquittal of the charges levelled against him by the appellate court, contending that the prosecution’s case suffered material contradictions and omissions.
“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,” the March 30 order said.
This omission significantly weakens the prosecution’s case and undermines the credibility of the alleged recovery, the Chhattisgarh High Court said.
“Although the report of the Wildlife Forensic Cell, ….. 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 (empowers the court to put questions to the accused) CrPC, which further causes prejudice to the defence,” the court said.
A leopard is classified as a mammal under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which covers endangered species that need rigorous protection.
Leopard skin seized
The report of the Wildlife Forensic Cell, marked by the trial court, indicates that the seized skin was that of a leopard (Panthera pardus).
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.
Upon careful appreciation of the evidence on record, it is evident that the testimony of the investigating officer is marred by material contradictions and omissions, particularly regarding the seizure and safe custody of the alleged leopard skin.
Wildlife Crime
The Case
Illegal leopard trophy seizure — from tip-off to conviction
Species
Panthera pardus (Leopard) — Endangered, Schedule I Protected
1
Jan 23, 2014
Crime Branch Tip-Off
Investigating officer received intelligence from the crime branch and alerted the forest department.
2
Arrest
Accused Intercepted & Searched
Accused stopped on the road; found carrying a leopard trophy allegedly meant for sale.
3
Seizure
Skin & Items Seized
Leopard skin and other items recovered from the accused as per the official seizure report.
4
Investigation
FIR Filed, Statements Recorded
Case registered under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Investigation completed; witness statements recorded.
5
Trial
Charge Sheet Filed; Accused Plead Not Guilty
Charge sheet submitted; applicants rejected all charges and contested the case in trial court.
6
Verdict
Convicted by Two Courts
Both trial court and appellate court, on review of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants.
⚖️
Final Outcome
Convicted & Sentenced — upheld by Trial Court and Appellate Court
Charged Under
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
Express InfoGenIE
Procedural lapse
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 relates to the period during which the seized skin was allegedly kept in the police station.
On February 21, 2014, the fact that it was sent for forensic examination remains unexplained, thereby creating serious doubt about the integrity of the seized property.
The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s version and have stated that no seizure or panchnama proceedings were conducted in their presence.
Although there is 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.
This omission significantly weakens the prosecution’s 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 a reasonable doubt.
Advocate Pawas Sharma, along with other representatives of the applicants, submitted that the trial court and appellate court did not properly appreciate the evidence available on record.
The counsel submitted that the two independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s case and have become futile.
The alleged seized articles were not kept in safe custody, and there is no sample seal attached to the seizure memo.
There is no copy of the malkhana register available on record.
It was submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the investigating officer; his statement is not reliable.
It was argued that the statements of other prosecution witnesses do not corroborate the statements of the investigating officer.
On these premises, the counsel prayed that the applicants be acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
Leopard, endangered under Wildlife (Protection) Act
Deputy Government Advocate Atanu Gosh, representing the state, argues that the statement of the investigating officer and the available evidence indicated that the applicant was caught with the skin of the big cat, which is an endangered, scheduled animal, a leopard (Panthera pardus). He pointed out that a leopard is classified as a mammal under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.
She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.
Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.
Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More
This omission significantly weakens the prosecution’s case and undermines the credibility of the alleged recovery, the Chhattisgarh High Court said.