Back
: Upholds Acquittal in Lion Poaching Case
A Case Built on a Chit and a Flawed
The has firmly upheld the acquittal of Prabhakar Gajakosh, a man accused of involvement in a lion poaching racket, observing that the prosecution "miserably failed" to prove the charges against him. Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak, dismissing the State's appeal, found no illegality or perversity in the sessions court's order that had reversed Gajakosh's conviction.
How a Telephone Number Became the Only 'Link'
The case originated from a complaint alleging that a group of poachers had set a trap to kill an Asiatic lion in Bhandaria village, Bhavnagar district. While several accused were arrested and convicted, Gajakosh was not named in the FIR. His implication came solely from a small chit—allegedly recovered from a cloth bundle of another accused—that contained his landline and mobile numbers. The trial court convicted him in , but the sessions court acquitted him, finding the evidence too weak.
Prosecution's Arguments: A House of Cards
Before the High Court, Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution had examined multiple witnesses and placed documentary evidence on record. She contended that the appellate court had failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and that the testimony of witnesses, including a , established Gajakosh's connection to the poaching syndicate.
Defense: No Credible Evidence Whatsoever
Responding,
, counsel for Gajakosh, submitted that there was
"not an iota of evidence"
linking his client to the crime. He pointed out that the accused was not named in the FIR, and the sole piece of
—the telephone chit—was not satisfactorily proved. The
report, heavily relied upon by the trial court, was
because the scientific officer who conducted it was never examined.
High Court's Legal Analysis: Conjecture Cannot Replace Proof
Justice Prachchhak meticulously reviewed the record. He noted that the
at Exhibit-48, who was supposed to prove the recovery of the chit,
"had not satisfactorily explained in his evidence how the
was drawn or how the said chit was recovered."
The court also observed that the
report could not be
"treated as proved against the present respondent"
since the expert who performed it was absent from the witness box.
The judgment underscored that the trial court's conviction was based on "" rather than . Quoting the sessions court's reasoning, the High Court agreed that the investigating agency had failed to gather crucial evidence like call detail records, which could have substantiated the alleged telephonic link.
"Miserably Failed to Prove Charges"
In a key observation, the High Court stated:
"Considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record, it appears that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the present respondent. The respondent-accused's involvement was based merely on certain circumstances, on the basis of which the trial Court had convicted him and since the circumstances relied upon by the trial Court were not found to be convincing or cogent, the appellate Court has rightly reversed the said findings and acquitted the present respondent."
The court also reiterated the well-settled principle that in an , the appellate court should not interfere unless the lower court's conclusion is . It cited the 's decisions in and , emphasizing the that favours an acquitted accused.
Final Verdict: Acquittal Confirmed
Dismissing the State's appeal, Justice Prachchhak confirmed the sessions court's order and cancelled Gajakosh's . The judgment serves as a strong reminder that convictions cannot be sustained on weak , especially when key procedural safeguards—like examining expert witnesses—are ignored.
