In Absence of Ballistic Reports and Proven Cause of Death, Acquittal in Wildlife Poaching Cases is Justified

On March 23, 2016, police received information regarding illegal hunting of a blackbuck by individuals in a Toyota Qualis.

On March 24, 2016, a carcass was recovered from a drain, and a post-mortem suggested firearm and sharp-edged weapon injuries.

The accused were charged under Sections 9, 50, and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Trial Court (JMFC, Bairasiya) acquitted the respondents on April 22, 2022, citing insufficient evidence.

The State appealed this acquittal, contending that the recovery of the weapon and the police testimony were sufficient for conviction.

1. Whether the prosecution established the cause of death as a gunshot injury and linked the seized weapons to the accused beyond a reasonable doubt to attract liability under the Wildlife (Protection) Act.

2. Whether the appellate court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal when the Trial Court’s view is a "possible view" based on the evidence.

Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning appeals against acquittal.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding discovery of facts.

The principles of appellate jurisdiction mandate that an appellate court shall not overturn an acquittal unless the findings are perverse, illegal, or the only possible conclusion is guilt, as established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka.

The Court observed that all independent witnesses (PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-8 to PW-10) turned hostile.

The Veterinary Officer (PW-4) admitted no gunpowder or bullets were found in the carcass, contradicting the gunshot theory.

The Investigating Officer (PW-7) failed to produce malkhana (storehouse) records or examine the malkhana in-charge to prove the safe custody of seized items.

The Armorer (PW-11) testified that the weapon was an airgun, not a rifle, and noted that the items were received unsealed, creating a gap in the chain of custody.

The Court found that without a ballistic report linking the airgun to the animal’s death, the prosecution's case was based on insufficient evidence.

Applying the "possible view" doctrine, the Court held that the Trial Court's appreciation of these discrepancies was lawful and not perverse.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal, concluding there was no ground to interfere with the Trial Court’s findings as they were neither patently perverse nor legally erroneous.