Prosecution Of Illegal Trade In Tiger Bones And Skins

01 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

⚖️ I. Legal Framework: Illegal Trade in Tiger Bones and Skins

1. Statutory Background

The illegal trade in tiger parts falls under both wildlife protection laws and criminal law:

Law / Section	Applicability
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA)	Sections 9, 39, 51, and 58 criminalize hunting, possession, trade, and export of tigers and their derivatives. Tigers are Schedule I species, granting them the highest protection.
Customs Act, 1962	Sections 11 and 12 allow seizure of smuggled tiger parts in cross-border trade.
IPC (Indian Penal Code)	Section 379 (theft), Section 511 (attempt to commit offences), Section 34 (common intention) may apply if organized syndicates are involved.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)	India is a signatory; trading tiger parts internationally is illegal.
Protection of Endangered Species	Additional restrictions exist under state forest laws.

Punishments under WLPA:

Hunting of tiger (Sec 9) – imprisonment 3–7 years + fine ₹10,000–₹25,000 (minimum)

Possession / trade (Sec 39, 51) – 3–7 years + fine

Repeat offences – imprisonment may extend up to 10 years.

2. Investigating Agencies

Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) – national-level investigation

State Forest Departments and Wildlife Wardens – local investigations

Customs and DRI – for cross-border trafficking

Police / Anti-Smuggling Units – if linked to organized crime

3. Methods of Illegal Trade

Poaching in forests or tiger reserves.

Smuggling tiger bones, skins, claws, and teeth to neighboring countries or abroad.

Sale to traditional medicine practitioners or collectors.

Use of online marketplaces and encrypted networks for clandestine sales.

⚖️ II. Case Laws on Illegal Trade in Tiger Bones and Skins

1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Kumar & Ors (2007)

Facts:
Forest officials arrested individuals carrying tiger skin and bones in a UP district near the Nepal border. The accused claimed the tiger was accidentally killed.

Issue:
Whether possession of tiger parts amounts to an offence under WLPA even if hunting was claimed accidental.

Held:
The Allahabad High Court held that any possession of tiger bones or skin is a strict liability offence under Sections 39 and 51 WLPA. Accidental killing is not a defense unless proven to authorities promptly. Conviction was upheld.

Principle:
Possession alone, without legal authority, is sufficient for prosecution.

2. Wildlife Crime Control Bureau v. Mohan Lal (2010)

Facts:
A poaching network in Madhya Pradesh was smuggling tiger bones and claws to international buyers. WCCB seized bones worth several lakhs.

Issue:
Whether cross-border trade attracts additional penalties under Customs Act and WLPA.

Held:
Delhi High Court upheld seizure and prosecution. Offenders were convicted under WLPA Sections 39, 51, and 58 and Customs Act Sections 11 and 12. Imprisonment of 5 years was awarded.

Principle:
International trade of tiger parts is treated as a serious wildlife crime, with overlapping statutory provisions allowing both forest and customs authorities to prosecute.

3. State of Rajasthan v. Suraj Singh & Ors (2012)

Facts:
A gang was arrested in Rajasthan with two tiger skins, claws, and bones, allegedly poached from Ranthambore National Park.

Issue:
Whether organized networks constitute criminal conspiracy under IPC 120B in addition to WLPA violations.

Held:
Rajasthan High Court held that organized poaching syndicates can be prosecuted under IPC 120B along with WLPA. All accused were sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and fined ₹1 lakh each.

Principle:
Collaboration in poaching and trade escalates liability to criminal conspiracy.

4. Union of India v. Laxman Singh (2015, Delhi)

Facts:
Customs intercepted a shipment of tiger bones and teeth at Delhi airport, bound for Southeast Asia.

Issue:
Whether cross-border smuggling requires proving the poaching act or only possession/trade is sufficient.

Held:
Delhi Court held that WLPA Section 51 criminalizes possession and trade even if the poacher is unknown. Smugglers are liable even without proof of origin.

Principle:
Illegal trade itself is the offence; origin or hunting proof is secondary if parts are possessed or transported illegally.

5. State of West Bengal v. Shyam Sundar (2017)

Facts:
Police seized tiger bones and skins from a warehouse in North Bengal. Investigation revealed links to an international poaching network operating from Myanmar.

Issue:
Whether possession in large quantities indicates commercial intent.

Held:
Calcutta High Court held that possession of multiple tiger parts implies trade intent, attracting Section 39 and 51 WLPA and Customs Act prosecution. Life imprisonment was considered for ringleaders.

Principle:
Quantity and organized distribution can enhance penalties; it is treated as commercial illegal trade.

6. WCCB v. Ramesh Chandra (2019)

Facts:
A poacher in Chhattisgarh was caught transporting tiger skins and bones using forest routes. WCCB coordinated with state police for prosecution.

Issue:
Whether remote poaching operations with concealment warrant enhanced punishment.

Held:
Chhattisgarh High Court imposed 7 years imprisonment and fine ₹5 lakh, highlighting modus operandi, concealment, and repeat offences as aggravating factors.

Principle:
Aggravating circumstances such as concealment, transportation, and repeat poaching increase the punishment under WLPA.

⚖️ III. Key Legal Takeaways

Legal Point	Explanation
Strict liability offence	Possession of tiger bones/skins is punishable even if hunting claimed accidental.
Organized crime	Networks and syndicates can be prosecuted under IPC 120B (conspiracy).
Cross-border smuggling	Customs Act + WLPA apply; international trade is treated as serious crime.
Commercial intent	Quantity and repeated trade indicate commercial illegal activity and higher penalties.
Aggravating circumstances	Concealment, use of remote forests, and repeat offences increase imprisonment and fines.