JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. ADMIT. Taken up for disposal forthwith with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 3. These revision applications arise out of the judgment and order dated 17.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Gadchiroli and therefore, the same are being disposed of by the common judgment. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.06.2023 dismissed the appeals filed by the applicants/accused against their conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli for the offence punishable under Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (For short ‘Act of 1972’). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli vide judgment and order dated 04.09.2018 had convicted the accused and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. 4. Background facts: The case was registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint filed by PW-1 Mr. Mohan Naikwade, the then Assistant Conservator of Forest, Gadchiroli. The case of the Forest Department against the accused can be unfolded from the complaint. It is stated that on 20.01.2014, PW-1 Mr. Naikwade had received an information from the secret informer about the possession of the Leopard skin by some persons at village Chamorshi. On the basis of this information, the necessary preparation was made for laying the trap and to nab the offenders. PW-6 and the informer were assigned the role of decoy customers. As decided, PW-6 Sachin Dombale and informer used a private TATA Sumo vehicle. PW-1 Mr. Naikwade and other forest officers and members of raiding party used the Government Vehicle. The informer established the contact, on phone, with accused No.3-Kuldip Chaudhari, being a decoy customer. Accused No. 3 agreed to sell the Leopard skin to them and promised to meet them. He met them on the way after deliberation with PW-6 and informer. He sat in their vehicle and made a phone call to his companion Pandit Meshram and apprised him about the sell of the skin to the decoy customer. Kuldip Chaudhari, accordingly directed Pandit Meshram to bring the skin. In the meantime, PW-6 apprised Mr. Naikwade (PW-1) about these developments and instructed them to follow their vehicle. On instructions of Kuldip, the accused Nos. Kuldip Chaudhari, accordingly directed Pandit Meshram to bring the skin. In the meantime, PW-6 apprised Mr. Naikwade (PW-1) about these developments and instructed them to follow their vehicle. On instructions of Kuldip, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 came on motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-33/K1162, with the Leopard skin. PW-6 and the informer wanted to see the skin, however accused Shridhar was reluctant to show the skin to them in open. He boarded their vehicle. The deal for sell of the skin was settled. PW-6 informed them that he had no money and for the purpose of completion of transaction they would have to accompany them at Chamorshi Bus Stand. Accordingly, they went to Chamorshi Bus Stand. In the meantime, PW-6 called PW-1 and apprised him about the development and told him to follow their vehicle and come to Chamorshi Bus Stand. It is stated that when the TATA Sumo Vehicle came near Chamorshi Bus Stand, Mr. Naikwade and his team members surrounded the vehicle. They apprehended the accused with the Leopard skin. The Leopard skin was seized in presence of two panchas. The accused Vinod who was following the TATA Sumo Jeep ran away from the spot. Later on he was apprehended. 5. The accused were brought to the office of PW-1 Mr. Naikwade at Gadchiroli. Accused Kuldip during the course of interrogation provided them further information, which lead to the arrest of the remaining accused. In the case, in all ten accused were arrested. Their statements were recorded. The sample of the Leopard skin was drawn. It was packed, labeled and sealed. It was sent to Center for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad for analysis. On analysis, PW-8 Dr. Ajay Gaur opined that it was a skin of Leopard-scientific name Panthera Pardus. After completion of the investigation, the complaint as stated, was filed against the ten accused. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli took the cognizance of the offence. 6. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to bring home the guilt against the accused. Learned CJM acquitted the eight accused and convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 and sentenced them, as above. The appeals filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 against their conviction was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. The accused have, therefore, approached this Court. 7. I have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Madhur Deo for accused No.2, learned Advocate Mr. V.N. Morande for accused Nos. 1 to 3 and sentenced them, as above. The appeals filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 against their conviction was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. The accused have, therefore, approached this Court. 7. I have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Madhur Deo for accused No.2, learned Advocate Mr. V.N. Morande for accused Nos. 1 and 3 and learned APP Mr. Amit Chutke, for the State. Perused the record and proceedings. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Madhur Deo for accused No. 2 submitted that in this case the identification of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has not at all been established in the Court through the witnesses. Learned Advocate pointed out that identification of the accused in the Court by the witnesses is a substantive piece of evidence. There is no substantive evidence in this case with regard to the identification of the accused. Learned Advocate submitted that considering the fact that ten accused were facing the trial before the learned Magistrate it was necessary to separately establish the identification of accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Learned Advocate pointed out that such identification was necessary considering the manner of apprehension of accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Learned Advocate further submitted that in this case the report at Exh. 114, proved on the basis of the evidence of PW-8 Dr. Ajay Gaur, cannot be made basis of conviction of the accused because there is no evidence to establish the link of the sample from the time of drawing of the sample till the sample reached the office of PW-8. Learned Advocate pointed out that as per the case of Forest Department the skin was seized on 20.01.2014 and the sample was drawn on 24.01.2014. The sample was sent, as per the case of the prosecution, to the lab on 04.03.2014. Learned Advocate submitted that there is no evidence about the custody of a sample from 24.01.2014 to 04.03.2014. There is no evidence with regard to the mode and manner of sending the sample to PW-8. Learned Advocate therefore submitted that the report at Exh. 115 cannot be relied upon as a credible piece of evidence against the accused. Learned Advocate further submitted that confessional statements of the accused sought to be relied upon by the prosecution were not recorded by the competent officer, as provided under Section 50(8) of the Act of 1972. Learned Advocate therefore submitted that the report at Exh. 115 cannot be relied upon as a credible piece of evidence against the accused. Learned Advocate further submitted that confessional statements of the accused sought to be relied upon by the prosecution were not recorded by the competent officer, as provided under Section 50(8) of the Act of 1972. Learned Advocate further submitted that in the evidence of material witnesses there are major inconsistencies and therefore, the case of prosecution, with regard to the apprehension of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 with the Leopard skin, in the manner stated by the witnesses has become doubtful. Learned Advocate took me through the evidence of the witnesses particularly PW-1 and PW-6 and submitted that their evidence has been fully shaken in the cross examination vis-a-vis the material incident. Learned Advocate submitted that panch witnesses PW-2 and 3 have made self contradictory statements on the incident of actual apprehension of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Learned Advocate further submitted that the driver of the TATA Sumo vehicle and the person from the NGO were not examined. It is further submitted that the CDR of the mobile handsets of the accused seized in the crime was not obtained and produced in the case. Learned Advocate submitted that the Courts below have not taken all the above material aspects into consideration and handed down the maximum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment to accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Morande for accused No.1 Kuldip Choudhari and accused No.3 Shridhar Yerawar made the submission similar to the one made by learned Advocate Mr Deo. Learned Advocates for accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3 submitted that in this case, sufficient doubt is created about the case of the prosecution against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. Learned Advocates submitted that Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence properly and as such, came to a wrong conclusion. Learned Advocates submitted that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are liable to be acquitted. 10. Learned APP submitted that the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Learned APP submitted that on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the recovery and seizure of the Leopard skin from the possession of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 has been proved. 1, 2 and 3 are liable to be acquitted. 10. Learned APP submitted that the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Learned APP submitted that on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the recovery and seizure of the Leopard skin from the possession of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 has been proved. Learned APP submitted that the identification of the accused in the Court has been proved through the evidence of PW-1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Learned APP submitted that there are no material inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses and therefore the Courts below have rightly accepted the said evidence. Learned APP further submitted that the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact and therefore, the same cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In short, learned APP supported the judgment and order passed by the Courts below. 11. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, I have minutely perused the evidence available on record. In my view, perusal of the evidence indicates that the case of the prosecution is not free from doubt. There are number of proved facts to create a doubt about the case of the prosecution against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 were not previously known to the witnesses. According to the witnesses, on the basis of the secret information, the raid was conducted and the accused were apprehended with the Leopard skin. It was recovered from their possession and seized. It is undisputed that alongwith accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, seven more accused faced the trial before learned Magistrate. Remaining seven accused were acquitted for want of evidence. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the prosecution was required to prove the identification of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt. It is the case of the prosecution that distinct and separate role was played by accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the process of bargaining with decoy customers for the sell of Leopard skin. Undisputedly, in such a case the substantive evidence is the identification of the accused by the witnesses before the Court. In the process of proof of the identification of the accused the prosecutor and witnesses are required to play a very important role. Undisputedly, in such a case the substantive evidence is the identification of the accused by the witnesses before the Court. In the process of proof of the identification of the accused the prosecutor and witnesses are required to play a very important role. Similarly, the Court is also required to ensure that substantive evidence of identification is properly brought on record. It needs to be stated that in a case where more than one accused are involved and a specific role is attributed to each and every accused, the witnesses are expected to narrate the role played by each and every accused, describing each and every accused and identify the said accused before the Court. It is further necessary to mention that the Court is required to record the exact words stated by the witnesses and the procedure followed for the purpose of establishing the identity. Everything stated by the witnesses with regard to the identification of the accused in such a case must be reflected in the evidence of each and every witnesses. As far as possible, the manner in which the particular accused is identified by the witness needs to be recorded in the evidence. Mere statement by the witnesses that the accused standing before the Court are the same could not be said to be sufficient evidence to establish the identification of the accused in such a serious crime. Keeping this position in mind it would be necessary to advert to the evidence of the witnesses. 12. PW-1 is the complainant. At the relevant time he was working as ‘Assistant Conservator of Forest’ at Gadchiroli. PW-6 Sachin Dombale, at the relevant time was working as a RFO at Gadchiroli. PW-1 and 6, being senior officers and being a part of the raiding party, were expected to identify the accused before the Court without hesitation. PW-2 and 3 are the panch witnesses, who according to the case of the prosecution were present when the accused were apprehended with the Leopard skin and the Leopard skin was recovered and seized in their presence. PW-5 is the Forest Guard. PW-7 is also a Forest Guard. All these witnesses were part of the raiding team. In their evidence, they have narrated as to how the raid was conducted and as to how accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 were apprehended with the Leopard skin. PW-5 is the Forest Guard. PW-7 is also a Forest Guard. All these witnesses were part of the raiding team. In their evidence, they have narrated as to how the raid was conducted and as to how accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 were apprehended with the Leopard skin. On perusal of their evidence on the aspect of identification of the accused, I am constrained to observe that they have not stated in their evidence a word about identification of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the Court. It is seen that PW-1, the Senior Forest Officer has not stated a word about the identification of the single accused in the Court at the time of his evidence. PW-2, a panch witness, has stated that he can not identify the person from whom the skin was seized. PW-3 is another panch witness. He has also not stated a word about the identification of the accused in the Court. PW-6 has also not stated a word about the identification of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 before the Court. He has made a general statement in his evidence that all the accused persons who were arrested by them are present in the Court. PW-5 has also made a general statement that all the accused persons before Court are the same. He has further stated that two accused are absent. PW-7 has stated in examination-in-chief that some of the accused involved in the crime are present in the court. 13. It is the case of the prosecution that after apprehending accused Nos.1,2 and 3 they provided further lead and on the basis of that lead the remaining accused were arrested one by one. The remaining accused have been acquitted in the case. In this case, as per the case of the prosecution the role attributed to the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the hunting of the Leopard was serious. The witnesses were therefore required to state before the Court the role played by each and every accused with necessary detail and identify the said accused in the Court by attributing that role to that accused. In this case, there is no evidence about the identification of the accused in the Court. 14. It is seen on perusal of the evidence of PW-1, 5, 6 and 7 that they have described accused by their names in their evidence. In this case, there is no evidence about the identification of the accused in the Court. 14. It is seen on perusal of the evidence of PW-1, 5, 6 and 7 that they have described accused by their names in their evidence. However, they have not identified those accused in the Court by their names and by attributing the specific role to them. I am constrained to observe that this is a serious lapse in the case of prosecution. The accused cannot be held responsible for this lapse. The failure to follow this procedure in the fact situation is the secondary question, at this stage. The primary question is the consequences of the same in the eyes of law. In my view, the consequence of the same under law is that there is no substantive evidence before the Court to prove the identification of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, in this case. In my view, therefore, this is the most important lacuna in the case of prosecution. It goes to the root of the case of the prosecution. The identification of the accused in this case has not been established by the prosecution. 15. The next important aspect which goes against the case of the prosecution is the inconsistent evidence of the witnesses on the actual raid, apprehension of the accused and the recovery of the Leopard skin from their possession. PW-1 has stated that on the basis of secret information received by him the raid was conducted and the accused were apprehended. He has stated that the mobile handsets of the accused were seized. It is the case of the prosecution that the primary investigation revealed that accused Shridhar was in constant contact of person by name Patil. Patil was none other than the accused Pandit. The CDR of the mobile phone was not obtained. Mobile handsets were not produced in the Court. PW-1 has stated that decoy customer first contacted accused Kuldip Chaudhari and called him for settling the deal for the purchase of Leopard skin. Accused Kuldip then called his companions, accused Shridhar and Vinod. They came on motorcycle with the skin. PW-1 has stated that they surrounded the TATA Sumo vehicle and the skin was recovered from the TATA Sumo vehicle. PW-2 has stated that the forest officer took out a skin of Leopard from one bag kept on motorcycle, in his presence. Accused Kuldip then called his companions, accused Shridhar and Vinod. They came on motorcycle with the skin. PW-1 has stated that they surrounded the TATA Sumo vehicle and the skin was recovered from the TATA Sumo vehicle. PW-2 has stated that the forest officer took out a skin of Leopard from one bag kept on motorcycle, in his presence. He has stated that two persons were riding the motorcycle. PW-3 panch witness stated that the TATA Sumo vehicle was apprehended by the Forest Officer. It is stated that 3-4 persons were sitting in the vehicle. There was one sealed packet inside the vehicle. PW-3, who was the member of the raiding party has stated that though he participated in the raid he did not see as to what was kept in the bag which was found in the vehicle. PW-5, a forest guard, has stated that alongwith PW-6 Mr Dombale, IFS officer Meena was also sitting in the said vehicle. The evidence of PW-1 is contradictory to this evidence of PW-5. PW-6 is silent about presence of the Forest Officer Meena. PW-6 has stated that he and one person of NGO were sitting in the private vehicle as a decoy customer. It is the case of the prosecution that from the spot the accused Vinod ran away on a motorcycle. Some witnesses have stated that he was apprehended on the spot and taken to the forest office at Gadchiroli. PW-6 has stated that all the three accused were arrested on one spot. This evidence of PW-6 is self contradictory to the evidence of PW-1. 16. Perusal of evidence of these witnesses, who claimed to be an eye witnesses to the raid, apprehension of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 and the recovery of the Leopard skin from them shows that it is inconsistent. The panch witnesses PW-2 and 3 have not supported the case of the prosecution on material aspects. Perusal of the evidence of these witnesses would show that it creates a doubt about the apprehension of the accused in the manner stated by these witnesses. In my view, therefore, it would not be safe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of these witnesses to base the conviction of the accused. 17. Perusal of the evidence of these witnesses would show that it creates a doubt about the apprehension of the accused in the manner stated by these witnesses. In my view, therefore, it would not be safe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of these witnesses to base the conviction of the accused. 17. The next important aspect which goes against the case of the prosecution is with regard to the proof of drawing of the sample, custody of the sample, forwarding of sample to the office of PW-8 and the actual analysis of the said sample by PW-8. PW-4 is the witness to the panchanama of drawing of sample. In order to highlight the lacunae in the case of prosecution at the outset it would be necessary to consider the evidence of PW-8. PW-8 has stated that he had received the sample with forwarding letter of Assistant Conservator of Forest, Gadchiroli. PW-1 is silent about any such letter having been addressed to PW-8. Forwarding letter was not produced on record. There is no explanation about it. PW-8 has stated that the sample was received in a plastic container. It was preserved in common salt. In his further evidence he has deposed about the analysis of the sample and his opinion. He has opined that sample skin was of Leopard-scientific name Panthera Pardus. Even if this opinion is accepted as it is, it would not take the case of the prosecution forward. 18. It is to be noted that drawing of sample, preservation of sample, the custody of sample and the evidence as to who carried the sample to the CA are the very vital aspects, which in my view reflect by and large on the credibility of the report. In this case as per the prosecution, sample was drawn on 24.01.2014. The panchanama drawn at the time of drawing of a sample at Exh. 112 is silent about the addition of salt by way of preservative in the plastic container. Similarly, the evidence of PW-4, a panch witness to the work of drawing of sample, is also silent about it. PW-1 has conducted the investigation. Neither PW-1 nor PW-6 have deposed about the custody and preservation of sample from 24.01.2014 to 04.03.2014. There is no contemporaneous documentary evidence to establish the custody of the sample. Similarly, the evidence of PW-4, a panch witness to the work of drawing of sample, is also silent about it. PW-1 has conducted the investigation. Neither PW-1 nor PW-6 have deposed about the custody and preservation of sample from 24.01.2014 to 04.03.2014. There is no contemporaneous documentary evidence to establish the custody of the sample. There is no evidence as to where and how the sample was kept and preserved during this period. In my view, in order to give sanctity to the report of the expert, the mode and manner of the preservation and custody of the sample is very important. Generally, the property seized in the crime is handed over in the custody of the malkhana incharge. The entry of the same is made in the register. At the time of evidence, the register is produced and on the basis of that evidence the mode and manner of the custody and preservation of the sample is proved. In this case, the person who had carried the sample to PW-8 was not examined. PW-1 and 10 are silent on this aspect. There is no evidence as to by whom and how the sample was carried to the lab of PW-8. The custody of the sample from 24.01.2014 to 04.03.2014 has not at all been stated and explained before the Court. The credibility of the report depends upon all these aspects. All the above aspects assumes importance and based on these aspects a conclusion has to be drawn that there was no scope at all for tampering with the sample. It is not out of place to mention that the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish all these facts. 19. There is one more glaring defect in the procedure followed while recording the statements of the accused during the course of investigation. As per Section 50(8) of the Act of 1972, the statements/confessional statements made by the accused before the designated officer is admissible in evidence against the accused. Before relying upon the statement/confessional statement of the accused recorded under sub section 8 of Section 50 twin conditions are required to be satisfied. (i) The statement must be recorded by the authorized Officer designated under Section 50(8) of the Act of 1972 (ii) The statement/confessional statement must be voluntary and truthful. 20. Before relying upon the statement/confessional statement of the accused recorded under sub section 8 of Section 50 twin conditions are required to be satisfied. (i) The statement must be recorded by the authorized Officer designated under Section 50(8) of the Act of 1972 (ii) The statement/confessional statement must be voluntary and truthful. 20. At the outset it is necessary to state that in majority of the cases under the Act of 1972, the statements/confessional statements are recorded in casual and careless manner. This case is the glaring example of it. PW-1 Mr Naikwade, at that time, was the Assistant Conservator of Forest. He was competent to record the statements/confessional statements of the accused. In his evidence, he is silent about recording of statements/confessional statements of the accused. He is also silent about the procedure followed by him before recording the statements of the accused. The statements were not shown to him at the time of his evidence. It is seen that the statements/confessional statements of the accused, convicted in this case, were recorded by PW-5 who at the relevant time was Forest Guard. He was not competent to record these statements. Similarly, the statements of three accused had been recorded by PW-6. PW-6 at the relevant time was the RFO. It is to be noted that there is a specific object behind incorporating Section 50(8) in the Act of 1972. Section 50(8) is an exception to the general rule. As per general rule, the confessional statement made by the accused before the police officer is not admissible in evidence. This is based on the principle of the protection against self incrimination. It appears that such careless and unmindful approach of the officers noticed in majority of such cases is nothing short of direct frustration of object of special provision of the enactment. In this case, if the statements/confessional statements had been recorded by the competent officer by following proper procedure, the same could have been the best evidence available to the prosecution against the accused. In my view, the forest department is therefore required to understand the object behind provision and take all such necessary steps to make the provision fruitful. 21. In my view, therefore, there are serious lacunae in the case of the prosecution. Sufficient doubt is created about credibility of the case of prosecution. In my view, the forest department is therefore required to understand the object behind provision and take all such necessary steps to make the provision fruitful. 21. In my view, therefore, there are serious lacunae in the case of the prosecution. Sufficient doubt is created about credibility of the case of prosecution. The Courts below have not properly appreciated all these aspects and came to a wrong conclusion. The prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that under Section 57 of the Act of 1972 Court can draw presumption against the accused, in case of proof of certain facts. In this case, the basic facts have not been established and therefore, drawing of presumption against the accused is out of question. The accused have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years, on the basis of above evidence. In my view, on the basis of doubtful facts, circumstances and evidence the conviction is not in accordance with law. The accused are, therefore, entitle to get the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the revision applications are allowed. 22. The judgment and order dated 17.06.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli and the judgment order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli are quashed and set aside. 23. The accused-Vinod Diwakar Sontakke, Kuldip Madhukar Choudhari and Shridhar Kawadu Yerawar are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 51 read with Section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 24. The revision applications stand disposed of, accordingly.