IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict interpretation of criminal statutes and the need to suppress mischief and advance the legislative object. The judgment also emphasizes the rule of lenity, which dictates that ambiguity in a criminal statute should be decided in favor of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the accused/appellants and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

2. By this common judgment and order it is proposed to dispose of two criminal appeals, being Criminal Appeal No. 416/2023 and Criminal Appeal No. 417/2023 arising out of the same judgment and order dated 26.09.2023 and 27.09.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge (Wildlife), Karbi Anglong, Diphu in Special (Wildlife) Case No. 11/2022.

3. It to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2023 and 27.09.2023, learned court below has convicted the accused/appellants namely, Md. Zanab Khan and Md. Habibur Rahman under Section 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months.

4. The background fact leading to filing of this appeal is adumbrated herein below:-

“On 12.04.2022, during routine Naka checking, taken up by ASI Jiten Gogoi of Dillai Police Station (P.S.), intercepted one Maruti Suzuki Ecco vehicle, bearing registration No. MN-01-AG-5829 and found two persons namely, Zanab Khan and Habibur Rahman with one gibbon species and four primate species under the family Cercopithecidae. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the Forester, Mongal Singh Enghi, In-Charge of Lahorijan Account Beat, under the Central Range Manja, Karbi Anglong East Division, who arrived at Dillai P.S. and thereafter, taken up the investigation. During the course of the investigation, he had examined with the witnesses and seized the aforesaid species along with the vehicle by preparing seizure list and arrested the accused/appellants and recorded the statement of the accused/appellants. Then on the next day he had forwarded them to the court and on 13.04.2022, the seized species were sent to the Assam State Zoo, Guwahati for their rehabilitation as per order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. Thereafter, on 18.04.2022, he had received a report from the Divisional Forest Officer of Assam State Zoo, in respect of death of one primate species, due to ailments. And thereafter, he had lodged the final complaint, upon which, the learned Special Judge (Wild Life), Karbi Anglong, Diphu registered a case, being Special (Wildlife) Case No. 11/2022, under Section 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 arising out of C.R. Case of 14/2022. Thereafter, complying with the provision of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. and after hearing learned Advocates of both side, the learned trial court had framed following charge against both the accused/appellants, under Section 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972:-

(i) Whether on 12.04.2022 at around 7.00 pm at Dillai Police Station, the accused were found in possession of one Gibbon species animal, under the family Hylobatidae and four numbers of Primate species animal under the family Cercopithecidae ? If so whether the accused were involved in illegal transportation and sale/purchase of such wild animals?

Thereafter, on being read and explained over the charges to the accused/appellants, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution side had examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses and also exhibited six documents in support of the charge. After closing the prosecution evidence, the learned trial court had examined the accused/appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused/appellants had declined to adduce evidence in their defence. Thereafter, hearing arguments of both the parties the learned trial court had found that the charge under Section 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 well established and thereafter, convicted the accused/appellants under the said Section of law and sentenced them as aforesaid.”

5. Being aggrieved, the accused/appellants have approached this Court by filing the present appea