Absence of Disclosure Statements and Broken Chain of Custody Vitiate Conviction Under Wildlife Protection Act

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni, dated 29.08.2022, which acquitted four respondents of animal poaching charges.

The prosecution alleged that following information from the Maharashtra Forest Department regarding a leopard killing, the accused were interrogated.

It was claimed that at the instance of accused Dinesh and Dilip, a piece of leopard skin, paws, and an axe were recovered from a government forest site and private land.

The prosecution examined eight witnesses, but the two independent seizure witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) turned hostile.

The State sought leave to appeal against the acquittal, which was filed with a 44-day delay.

1. Whether the delay of 44 days in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. Whether the prosecution established a mandatory link between the disclosure statements and subsequent recoveries to prove guilt under the Wildlife Protection Act.

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with a trial court’s order of acquittal where two views are reasonably possible.

The court applied Sections 9, 39, 44, 49-B, and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, concerning the hunting and possession of scheduled animal parts.

Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. regarding leave to appeal against acquittal.

Principles from H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), which mandate that an appellate court shall not overturn an acquittal if the trial court's view is "legally plausible" or a "possible view," reinforcing the presumption of innocence.

The court found significant procedural lapses in the prosecution's case. First, there were no written disclosure memoranda on record for accused Dinesh and Dilip to link them to the recovery of incriminating articles.

Second, the "mandatory link" between disclosure and recovery was absent; the seizure memo (Ex. P/2) failed to record that any information was furnished by the accused prior to recovery.

Third, the recovery site (P-308) was open government forest land, and the prosecution failed to provide revenue records (Khasra) to prove the accused's possession of the private land involved.

Finally, the court noted a broken chain of custody: the seizure memos lacked time stamps and seal impressions, and the prosecution failed to explain how the items were secured between the seizure and forensic examination, failing to rule out tampering.

The High Court allowed I.A. No. 5299/2023 condoning the delay but dismissed the application for leave to appeal (I.A. No. 921/2023). Consequently, the order of acquittal was upheld, and the criminal appeal was dismissed.