Failure to put incriminating evidence under Section 313 CrPC and unproven safe custody warrant acquittal.

On January 23, 2014, based on secret information, the Investigating Officer (IO) intercepted three individuals on a motorcycle near Sirsi Gobari Pool

A search of a plastic sack on the vehicle allegedly revealed a leopard (Panthera pardus) skin

The accused were charged under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

On September 30, 2015, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Surajpur, convicted the applicants under Section 51(1-A) of the Act, sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine

This conviction was affirmed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, on June 6, 2016

The applicants moved the High Court in revision, challenging the conviction based on procedural irregularities and lack of evidence

Section 51(1-A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which penalizes the possession of trophies derived from animals listed in Schedule I

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., which mandates that the accused be given an opportunity to explain every incriminating circumstance appearing in evidence

The principle established in Kalicharan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 583, holding that questioning under Section 313 is not an empty formality and failure to explain vital circumstances to the accused prevents a proper defense

Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the continuation of bail bonds

The IO (PW-07) admitted that the seized skin was not sealed at the spot and no sample seal was affixed to the seizure memo

The IO failed to produce the malkhana (storehouse) register or any documentary evidence to prove the safe custody of the skin between the date of seizure (January 23, 2014) and its arrival at the laboratory

A significant chronological discrepancy was noted: the IO claimed the skin was in police custody until March 12, 2014, yet also claimed it was sent for forensic examination on February 21, 2014

Both independent seizure witnesses (PW-01 and PW-02) turned hostile, stating no search occurred in their presence

The High Court observed that the Trial Court failed to question the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the Wildlife Forensic Cell report (Ex. C-1), which identified the skin as a leopard.

Per Kalicharan, this omission constituted a serious procedural irregularity that prejudiced the defense

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the seized article or the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt

The applicants were acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt

The Court further directed that the applicants’ bail bonds remain in force for six months pursuant to Section 481 of the BNSS