NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that the mere absence of transport documents cannot give rise to a presumption that cattle were being transported for slaughter, acquitting a man convicted under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act.
A two-judge bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran set aside the conviction of the appellant, one of six accused convicted of transporting 32 bullocks allegedly for slaughter.
The prosecution alleged that, acting on information, a head constable, who was also a witness in the case, detained a truck carrying 32 bullocks from Keduwa towards Odisha.
The cattle were seized and the driver and cleaner were arrested. A Bolero car travelling ahead of the truck was also detained as an escort vehicle, and its four occupants, including the appellant, were arrested.
All the accused were convicted under Section 6 of the Act and sentenced under Section 10 to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000 each. The trial court convicted the accused, the appellate courts upheld the conviction and the High Court reduced the sentence to the period already served.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that there was no evidence to establish an intention to slaughter the cattle and claimed innocence. Hearing the submissions, the bench allowed his appeal.
The court said an offence under Section 6 requires proof that cattle were being transported for slaughter or that the accused knew they were likely to be slaughtered.
Mere presumption by a prosecution witness, in the absence of supporting evidence on record, was insufficient to establish guilt, it observed.
"The reverse presumption provided by Section 11 would apply only if the essential ingredients for alleging the offence are proved before the Trial Court," the Court said, adding accused's onus arises only after the prosecution proves essential ingredients.
Since the seizing authority had failed to prove that the appellant knew the cattle were being transported for slaughter, the reverse burden would not apply, the bench said.
The court also held that the absence of transport documents could not be held against the accused and concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. It consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the appellant's conviction.