Madras High Court sets aside conviction and sentence imposed in ivory possession case from July 2000

Court acquits petitioner since the Coonoor Forest Range Officer failed to prove the case against him; judge says no independent material or evidence besides the confession statement is available to convict him

The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction and three-year imprisonment imposed by a trial court on an individual for possessing two ivories measuring 24 cm in length and 10 cm in circumference. The ivories were reportedly recovered from him way back in July 2000.

Allowing a criminal revision case filed by Thambu alias Thambattan, Justice P. Velmurugan set aside an order passed by a Sessions Court at Udhagamandalam in the Nilgiris in 2020 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by a Judicial Magistrate in Coonoor in 2014.

The judge held that the findings of the both the courts below were “perverse”, and therefore, liable to be set aside. He acquitted the revision petitioner from all charges since the Coonoor Forest Range Officer had failed to prove the case against him and ordered a refund of the fine amount.

According to the prosecution, the Q branch police had intercepted the revision petitioner during patrol duty on July 17, 2000 and found him to be in possession of two ivories, each weighing 500 g. On inquiry, the petitioner had also reportedly made a confession statement.

After a thorough investigation, a charge sheet was laid against him for various offences under the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 and the Tamil Nadu Forest Act of 1882. However, the Judicial Magistrate found him guilty under the Wildlife Act alone, and it was confirmed by the Sessions Court.

While assailing the decisions by way of a revision, the petitioner’s counsel K. Balasubramaniam contended that an independent witness, in whose presence the prosecution claimed to have prepared the seizure mahazar, had turned hostile, and hence, there was no credible evidence in the case.

Concurring with his submissions, the judge said the accused could not be convicted solely on the basis of the alleged confession statement. “Except the confession statement, no other independent material or any evidence is available to convict the petitioner in this case,” he pointed out.