Section 30: Presumption as to Guilt in Certain Cases

Overview

Section 30 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, creates a legal presumption. This means that if someone is found with the skin of a goat, cow, or its young (like a calf) – and that skin still has part of the animal’s head attached – the court will *assume* they cruelly killed the animal. The accused person then has to prove they *didn't* kill the animal cruelly, rather than the prosecution having to prove they did.

Key Provisions

• Presumption of Guilt: The core provision is a shift in the burden of proof. Normally, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, guilt is *presumed* if specific conditions are met.
• Specific Animals: This section applies only to goats, cows, and their progeny (calves, bullocks, etc.). It doesn’t cover other animals.
• Specific Evidence: The person must be *found with* a skin that has part of the head still attached. Simply possessing a skin isn’t enough; the head portion must be present.
• Rebuttable Presumption: The presumption isn’t absolute. The accused can present evidence to prove they did *not* cruelly kill the animal.

Practical Impact

This section aims to deter the cruel killing of cows and goats, which are considered sacred by many in India. It makes it harder for someone caught with relevant evidence to claim innocence. It impacts law enforcement by providing a strong basis for prosecution in such cases. It also affects individuals involved in animal husbandry and meat trade, requiring them to maintain clear records and demonstrate lawful acquisition of animal skins.

Examples

• Example 1: A person is found with a goat skin that has the head still attached, and they cannot explain how they legally obtained the skin. The court will likely presume they cruelly killed the goat, and they will need to provide evidence to the contrary (e.g., a receipt from a licensed butcher).
• Example 2: A leather worker is found with a cow skin with part of the head attached. However, they can produce a valid invoice from a government-approved slaughterhouse showing they purchased the skin legally. In this case, they can rebut the presumption of guilt, as they have demonstrated lawful acquisition.