No Cattle-Transport Conviction Without Proof of Slaughter Purpose; Reverse Burden Needs Ingredients Proved: Supreme Court

A truck carrying 32 bullocks from Keduwa towards Odisha was stopped by a Head Constable acting on information; the cattle were seized and the driver and cleaner arrested. A Bolero car moving ahead of the truck was also stopped on the allegation that it was escorting the truck, and its four occupants, including the appellant, were arrested (para 3). Six accused were convicted under Sections 6 and 10 of the Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000; the first appellate court affirmed, and the High Court in revision reduced the sentence to the period served (paras 2, 4). The appellant challenged the conviction (para 4).

The veterinary doctor's report showed all the animals fit and good for ploughing, which the president of the gaushala committee that took custody confirmed; the independent seizure witnesses turned hostile and identified none of the accused (para 5). The record established only that the truck was intercepted and the cattle seized; nothing substantial proved that the Bolero car was escorting the truck (para 7). Section 6 makes it an offence to transport cattle for slaughter or with knowledge that they are likely to be slaughtered, but apart from the Head Constable's presumption nothing showed such a purpose (para 8). The reverse burden in Section 11 applies only when the essential ingredients of the offence are proved at trial; only then must the accused show that the transport was lawful (para 8). The absence of transport documents does not create a presumption of transport for slaughter; if it breaches another statute, the consequences must flow from that statute (para 8). The conviction could not stand (para 9).