‘Mere Presumption of Slaughter Is Not Enough’: Supreme Court Sets Aside Cattle Transport Conviction

The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of Saurabh Bajaj, who was convicted along with five others under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, holding that there was no substantial evidence to establish that the cattle were being transported for slaughter.

A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed Bajaj’s appeal and set aside the orders of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and Revisional Court. The judgment was delivered on September 29, 2026.

The case arose from the interception of a truck carrying 32 bullocks from Keduwa towards Odisha. The truck was stopped by a Head Constable, following information regarding the alleged transportation of cattle. The driver and cleaner were arrested. A Bolero car travelling ahead of the truck was also intercepted on the allegation that it was escorting the truck, and four persons travelling in the car, including Bajaj, were arrested.

The Trial Court convicted the accused under the Act, imposing one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000. The conviction was upheld by the First Appellate Court and Revisional Court. The High Court subsequently restricted the sentence to the period already undergone, while the appellant continued to challenge the conviction.

Supreme Court Finds No Evidence of Transport for Slaughter

The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution had examined five witnesses. A Veterinary Doctor, who submitted the medical report, categorically stated that the cattle were fit and healthy and suitable for agricultural purposes, including ploughing.

The President of the Gaushala Committee, who was entrusted with the custody of the cattle, also corroborated their apparent health and suitability for agricultural use.

The Court observed that while PW3, the Head Constable, had established the interception and seizure of the cattle, there was nothing substantial on record to establish that the Bolero car was escorting the truck.

The independent seizure witnesses, PWs 2 and 4, had turned hostile, although they admitted their signatures on the seizure memo. Importantly, they did not identify any of the accused.

Mere Absence of Documents Cannot Establish Intent to Slaughter

The Court examined Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, which concerns transportation of cattle for the purpose of slaughter or with knowledge that the cattle are likely to be slaughtered.

The Bench held that a mere presumption by the Head Constable regarding the intention behind the transportation could not establish the essential ingredients of the offence.

The Court further clarified that the reverse burden under Section 11 would arise only after the prosecution first establishes the essential ingredients of the alleged offence.

According to the Court, the mere fact that the transportation was not accompanied by documents could not by itself lead to a presumption that the cattle were being transported for slaughter. If transportation violates a statutory requirement, the consequences must flow from that particular statutory violation and cannot automatically result in an assumption that the provisions relating to slaughter had been violated.

Conviction Set Aside

The Supreme Court held that there was no sufficient basis to uphold the conviction, particularly when the Veterinary Doctor and the President of the Gaushala Committee had stated that the cattle were fit for agricultural purposes.

The Court accordingly set aside the Revisional Court's order as well as the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court.

The conviction of Saurabh Bajaj was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Case: Saurabh Bajaj v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1076
SLP (Crl.) No.: 16871 of 2026
Judgment Date: September 29, 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Representation:-

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Shantanu Kumar AOR, Mr. Narsingh Narain Rai Adv., Mr. Kumar Ajit Singh Adv., Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Vinayak Sharma Standing Counsel, Adv., Mr. Yashvardhan Shah Adv., Mr. Kshitiz Aggarwal Adv., Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav AOR,