The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, in the landmark State vs Salman Khan Rajasthan High Court judgment (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 53/2012), set aside the trial court conviction and ordered the Salman Khan blackbuck poaching case acquittal. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur held that the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence under Section 51 Wildlife Protection Act 1972, observing that the state could not prove that the seized arms were used in the alleged hunting or that the pellets recovered from the vehicle matched the firearms. The judgment established that where a key prosecution witness is not tendered for cross-examination, their statement recorded during investigation cannot be admitted to sustain a criminal conviction.
Factual Background and Trial Court Proceedings
The prosecution alleged that during the shooting of a feature film near Jodhpur in late September 1998, two Chinkaras (Gazella bennettii), an endangered species protected under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, were hunted in two separate incidents at Bhawad and Ghoda Farm, Mathania. The forest department registered criminal complaints against multiple individuals, including actor Salman Khan.
The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, convicted the appellant under Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment along with a monetary fine. An appeal preferred before the Sessions Court resulted in confirmation of the conviction, prompting the appellant to approach the Rajasthan High Court in revision and criminal appeal to challenge the sustainability of the findings.
The defence contended that the entire prosecution case was built on circumstantial assertions without direct eyewitness testimony or verifiable forensic linkages. The trial court had relied heavily on statements recorded by forest officials and preliminary police reports without requiring the prosecution to establish the physical chain of custody for weapons and recovered pellets.
Evidentiary Assessment and Witness Inadmissibility
A central pillar of the prosecution case rested on the statements of driver Harish Dulani, who was driving the vehicle allegedly used during the hunting expedition. During the initial investigation, Dulani gave statements implicating the appellant. However, during the trial before the Magistrate, Dulani failed to appear for cross-examination and remained untraceable for years.
Justice Nirmaljit Kaur analyzed the evidentiary framework under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The High Court ruled that a statement given before an investigating officer or in preliminary proceedings cannot be treated as substantive evidence against an accused unless the defence is afforded a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Because the prosecution failed to produce Dulani for cross-examination, his statements were legally inadmissible, depriving the prosecution case of its primary direct link.
The High Court observed that the right to cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental requirement of criminal due process and fair trial jurisprudence. Without testing the veracity of the driver's assertions through cross-examination, the trial court erred in relying on his uncorroborated version to record a finding of guilt against the appellant.
Ballistic examination of pellets recovered from vehicle
The prosecution sought to establish guilt through the ballistic examination of pellets recovered from vehicle by the state forensic science laboratory. Forest officers claimed to have recovered six lead pellets from the Maruti Gypsy vehicle allegedly used during the incident. These pellets, along with licensed firearms seized from the appellant (an air rifle and a .22 bore rifle), were submitted for forensic and ballistic examination.
The forensic reports revealed fatal contradictions in the prosecution theory:
- The ballistic expert reports failed to establish that the lead pellets recovered from the vehicle were fired from the seized weapons belonging to the appellant.
- The lead pellets found in the vehicle were of a type commonly used in airguns, whereas the prosecution alleged high-velocity firearm hunting.
- No animal carcasses, blood-stained soil, or physical remains from the alleged hunting sites were recovered or matched forensically to the pellets or the vehicle.
- The chain of custody regarding the recovery and transmission of the pellets suffered from unexplained administrative delays, creating reasonable doubt regarding potential tampering.
- The search and seizure procedures adopted by the investigating authorities violated standard statutory protocols under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Statutory Standards under Section 51 Wildlife Protection Act 1972
Offences prosecuted under Section 51 Wildlife Protection Act 1972 require the state to discharge a heavy burden of proof. While statutory wildlife laws are designed to deter environmental crimes and protect endangered fauna, penal provisions demand the same standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt as any other criminal trial. The High Court reiterated that courts cannot lower evidentiary thresholds or substitute moral conviction for legal proof simply because of public attention or the status of the parties involved.
The statutory scheme under the Wildlife Protection Act penalizes hunting, possession of trophies, and unauthorized entry into protected areas. However, every element of the alleged offence must be supported by independent, credible, and admissible evidence demonstrating the direct involvement of the accused at the time and place of the occurrence.
Appreciation of circumstantial and forensic evidence
Applying the settled principles governing circumstantial evidence, the High Court emphasized that every link in the chain of circumstances must be firmly established and point exclusively to the guilt of the accused. The appreciation of circumstantial and forensic evidence by the trial court was found to be fundamentally flawed because it relied on conjectures rather than verified facts. The High Court observed that when two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, the view favouring the innocence of the accused must prevail.
The judgment highlighted that the prosecution failed to prove who brought the carcasses, who cooked or consumed the meat, where the actual shooting took place, or whether the weapons produced before the court were operational and used on the relevant dates. Consequently, the Rajasthan High Court allowed S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 53/2012, set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court, and acquitted Salman Khan of all charges under the Wildlife Protection Act, directing the discharge of his bail bonds.
Key Takeaways and Legal Precedents
The judgment remains an important precedent in Indian criminal jurisprudence concerning:
- Right to Cross-Examination: Reaffirming that un-cross-examined witness statements cannot form the foundation of a criminal conviction under Section 33 of the Evidence Act.
- Forensic Corroboration: Mandating conclusive ballistic linkage between seized weapons and recovered ammunition in wildlife hunting prosecutions.
- Integrity of Circumstantial Evidence: Upholding the rule that suspicion, regardless of its intensity, cannot substitute for proven legal facts in criminal trials.
- Chain of Custody in Seizures: Requiring strict compliance with search and seizure documentation to prevent claims of evidence tampering.