Back
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of illegal wildlife trade case (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. appellants' argument questioning cbi's evidence (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court's analysis of investigation and evidence (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. modification of sentence for the appellants (Para 24) |
| 5. final order and conclusion of the appeals (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeals assail the Final Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2023 in Criminal Revision Application Nos.82 and 83 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) passed by a learned Single Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the revision petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed and Judgment dated 23.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Sessions Court’) in Criminal Appeal Nos.88 and 97 of 2007 was upheld.
FACTS:
3. Secret information was received by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Unit No.II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CBI’) th
Conviction for illegal wildlife trade upheld; sentence reduced reflecting appellants' youth, emphasizing rigorous evidential standards in wildlife protection cases.
The judgment emphasizes the sufficiency and reliability of evidence in upholding the conviction and sentence for the illegal trade of wild animal products, and highlights the importance of deterrent ....
The prosecution must prove unauthorized entry and destruction of wildlife habitat beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
Unrebutted evidence collected by prosecution appears to be quite enough for holding accused guilty under Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, and for that both Courts below have been fully justifi....
Appellate courts cannot order retrial solely to enable prosecution to remedy deficiencies their case.
Section 62(C) of Karnataka Forest Act reads as certificate of Forest Officer to be an evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
