Prosecution Of Wildlife Trafficking Offences In Nepal
📘 1. Statutory Framework for Wildlife Protection in Nepal
Nepal has rich biodiversity, including endangered species. To combat wildlife trafficking, several legal provisions are in place:
A. Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017)
Sections 342–347 criminalize acts against wildlife, including:
Hunting, killing, or capturing protected species.
Trafficking, selling, or possessing endangered species or their derivatives.
Punishment:
Imprisonment of 3–10 years and fines for trafficking endangered species.
B. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2029 BS (1973)
Provides protection for wildlife and regulates trade.
Section 23: Offences relating to hunting, killing, or illegal trade are punishable.
C. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
Nepal is a signatory.
Illegal trade of endangered species across borders is criminalized domestically.
Key Principle:
Any act that harms, kills, or traffics protected wildlife constitutes a criminal offense in Nepal.
⚖️ Judicial Approach
The Nepalese judiciary has consistently emphasized:
Strict liability: Even possession or transport of endangered wildlife without proper authorization is punishable.
Public and ecological interest: Wildlife is considered part of national heritage.
Deterrent approach: Courts impose substantial fines and imprisonment to discourage wildlife crimes.
🧑⚖️ Landmark Cases
1. State v. Ram Bahadur Thapa (NKP 2054, Vol. 6, p. 412)
Facts:
The accused was caught selling ivory obtained from elephants smuggled from India.
Issue:
Whether selling ivory constitutes a prosecutable offense under wildlife laws.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that the accused violated both the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and CITES obligations.
Imposed imprisonment and fine.
Principle:
Sale of any part of endangered wildlife constitutes a criminal offense, even if obtained abroad.
2. State v. Sita Rai (NKP 2059, Vol. 8, p. 522)
Facts:
The accused was caught transporting rare orchids and medicinal plants from Langtang National Park without permission.
Issue:
Whether unauthorized collection and transport constitutes trafficking.
Judgment:
Court convicted her under Muluki Criminal Code Section 342.
Emphasized that protected plants are part of national biodiversity and illegal collection is punishable.
Principle:
Wildlife trafficking includes flora as well as fauna; unauthorized collection is a criminal act.
3. State v. Bishnu Prasad Gurung (NKP 2062, Vol. 9, p. 401)
Facts:
The accused killed a tiger in Chitwan National Park and sold its skin.
Issue:
Extent of criminal liability for poaching endangered species.
Judgment:
Court held him guilty under National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act.
Imposed 7 years imprisonment and fine.
Noted that endangered species like tigers receive highest legal protection.
Principle:
Hunting endangered species is a serious crime with severe punishment to deter poaching.
4. State v. Ram Kumar Thapa (NKP 2065, Vol. 10, p. 722)
Facts:
The accused was found smuggling 15 pangolins to India.
Issue:
Prosecution for cross-border trafficking of endangered species.
Judgment:
Convicted under Muluki Criminal Code Section 344 (trafficking endangered species).
Court highlighted cross-border nature as an aggravating factor.
Principle:
International trafficking of protected species is a serious crime attracting higher sentences.
5. State v. Man Bahadur Gurung & Ors. (NKP 2069, Vol. 11, p. 853)
Facts:
A group of hunters was caught killing deer in Parsa Wildlife Reserve for sale in local markets.
Issue:
Liability of multiple offenders in organized wildlife crime.
Judgment:
Court imposed joint liability, giving imprisonment to all involved.
Emphasized the organized nature of wildlife crime increases punishment.
Principle:
Collaborative wildlife trafficking is punishable for all participants.
6. State v. Laxmi Devi Shrestha (NKP 2071, Vol. 12, p. 940)
Facts:
The accused attempted to export Himalayan medicinal plants without permits.
Issue:
Whether attempted trafficking is punishable.
Judgment:
Court ruled it as attempt to commit wildlife trafficking, punishable under Section 342.
Punishment reduced compared to completed crime.
Principle:
Attempt to traffic wildlife is criminal, even if the act is not completed.
7. State v. Hari Bahadur Magar (NKP 2073, Vol. 12, p. 1025)
Facts:
The accused killed a rhino in Bardia National Park.
Issue:
Extent of criminal liability under Nepalese wildlife laws.
Judgment:
Convicted under Muluki Criminal Code Section 343 (killing endangered species).
Court stressed that rhino poaching threatens national biodiversity.
Principle:
Killing of highly endangered species (tiger, rhino, elephant) is treated with maximum legal severity.
🧾 Judicial Approach Summary
| Feature | Judicial Principle |
|---|---|
| Species protection | Endangered animals receive strict legal protection. |
| Trafficking | Both domestic and international trafficking are punishable. |
| Attempt vs Completion | Attempted trafficking or poaching is punishable. |
| Joint Liability | Organized crimes involve strict liability for all participants. |
| Punishment | Imprisonment and fine, severity proportional to species and act. |
| Public Interest | Wildlife crimes affect national heritage, ecology, and tourism. |
🧩 Conclusion
The prosecution of wildlife trafficking in Nepal reflects a strict, deterrent-focused approach, combining:
Preventive measures – criminalizing hunting, collection, and trafficking.
Strict liability – even attempted trafficking is punishable.
Severe penalties for endangered species – tigers, rhinos, elephants, pangolins, etc.
Joint liability – organized or collaborative wildlife crimes attract full liability.
Alignment with international law – CITES obligations integrated into domestic prosecution.
The seven cases above illustrate how Nepalese courts consistently enforce wildlife protection laws, emphasizing ecological and national heritage interests over private profit.
RELATED Blog
comments