Cattle-transport conviction cannot rest on missing documents; prosecution must first prove a link to slaughter, Supreme Court rules

The appellant was one of six persons convicted under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, for allegedly transporting cattle for slaughter or knowing they were likely to be slaughtered.

Thirty-two bullocks were intercepted in a truck travelling towards Odisha; the appellant was among four persons detained in a Bolero car alleged to be escorting the truck.

The Trial Court’s conviction was affirmed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court, although the High Court reduced the sentence to the period already served.

The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court.

The veterinary report and testimony of the Gaushala Committee president stated that the cattle were fit for agricultural purposes.

1. Whether the evidence established that the appellant participated in transporting the cattle for slaughter, or knowing that they were likely to be slaughtered, as required by Section 6.

2. Whether the reverse burden under Section 11 could apply without proof of the essential ingredients of the alleged offence.

Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, criminalises the transportation of cattle for the purpose of slaughter, or with knowledge that they are likely to be slaughtered.

Section 11 places a reverse burden on the accused only after the prosecution establishes the essential ingredients of the offence; it cannot itself supply missing proof of those ingredients.

A lack of documents accompanying cattle during transport does not, by itself, establish that the transport was for slaughter; any consequences for undocumented transport must arise under the statute governing that requirement.

The evidence established that PW3 intercepted the truck and seized the cattle, but did not substantially establish that the Bolero car was escorting the truck or that the cattle were being transported for slaughter.

The independent seizure witnesses did not identify the accused, and the prosecution relied on PW3’s presumption about the purpose of transport.

That inference was undermined by the veterinary evidence and the Gaushala Committee president’s testimony that the cattle were fit for agricultural use.

Because the essential ingredients of Section 6 had not first been proved, Section 11’s reverse burden did not arise; the absence of transport documents could not fill that evidentiary gap.

It set aside the appellant’s conviction and the orders of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court, and allowed the appeal.