Prosecution Of Wildlife Trafficking Under Wildlife Conservation Act
1. Introduction: Wildlife Trafficking and Legal Liability
Wildlife trafficking refers to illegal hunting, poaching, capturing, trading, or smuggling of wild animals, birds, or their derivatives. It poses a threat to biodiversity and is punishable under Indian law.
India’s main legislation for wildlife protection is the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA), which prohibits:
Hunting of protected species
Trade in wildlife and their parts
Possession, transportation, or sale without authorization
Criminal Liability under the WPA
Section 9: Prohibits hunting of wild animals listed in Schedules I–V
Section 39: Prohibits possession, sale, or trade of wildlife
Section 51: Punishment for contravention of Sections 9 and 39 (imprisonment and fines)
Section 55: Punishment for contravention in case of scheduled species
IPC sections like 379 (theft), 420 (cheating), 403 (criminal breach of trust), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) can also apply.
2. Landmark Cases on Wildlife Trafficking
Case 1: State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh Chavan (2005)
Facts:
The accused was caught smuggling skins and bones of protected wildlife species.
Held:
Court convicted under Sections 9, 39, and 51 of WPA.
Imposed imprisonment of 3 years and fine.
Impact:
Demonstrated strict criminal liability for possession and trade of protected species.
Principle: Possession of protected wildlife parts without authorization is a criminal offense.
Case 2: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 222
Facts:
Litigation concerned illegal logging and poaching in forests affecting wildlife.
Held:
Supreme Court issued directions for protection of wildlife and forests, emphasizing enforcement of WPA.
Impact:
Reinforced the state’s duty to prosecute wildlife crimes.
Courts clarified that illegal activities in forests including hunting or trade are criminally punishable.
Principle: State has an active duty to prevent wildlife trafficking.
Case 3: Union of India v. Mohd. Ibrahim (2001, Delhi HC)
Facts:
Accused arrested for smuggling exotic birds listed under Schedule I & II.
Held:
Court convicted under Sections 9, 39, and 51 of WPA.
Imposed imprisonment and fines; emphasized deterrence.
Impact:
Confirmed that smuggling of live animals is treated as serious criminal offense.
Principle: Trade in wildlife or parts without permit attracts imprisonment.
Case 4: Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) vs. Satish Yadav (2018)
Facts:
Accused arrested for illegal trade in tiger bones and leopard skins.
Held:
Convicted under Section 39 & 51 of WPA.
Additional charges under IPC 120B (criminal conspiracy).
Court emphasized stringent punishment for organized wildlife trafficking networks.
Impact:
Established that organized wildlife trafficking is not just a civil violation but a criminal enterprise.
Principle: Trafficking networks attract enhanced criminal liability.
Case 5: State of Karnataka v. K. R. Rajagopal (2015)
Facts:
Accused poached protected species for commercial sale.
Held:
Convicted under Sections 9, 39, 51 of WPA.
Court held that ignorance of law is no excuse.
Impact:
Reaffirmed criminal liability for poaching regardless of scale.
Principle: Intentional poaching for profit is punishable by imprisonment and fines.
Case 6: State of Assam vs. Nilakanta Sharma (2016)
Facts:
Accused caught trading ivory tusks and rhino horns.
Held:
Convicted under Sections 9, 39, 51 WPA and IPC 420 for cheating buyers.
Sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Impact:
Highlighted the combination of wildlife law and IPC provisions to tackle trafficking.
Principle: Trade of endangered species is treated as high-level criminal activity.
Case 7: Wildlife Crime Control Bureau v. Rajesh Kumar (2020)
Facts:
Accused ran an online marketplace for illegal exotic birds and reptiles.
Held:
Court applied IT Act, IPC, and WPA Sections 39 & 51.
Convicted for illegal trade and criminal conspiracy.
Impact:
Demonstrated that digital platforms can also be used for prosecuting wildlife trafficking.
Principle: Online illegal wildlife trade attracts criminal liability under multiple laws.
3. Key Legal Principles from Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Strict criminal liability | Sections 9, 39, 51 of WPA apply to hunting, possession, and trade of protected species |
| IPC provisions complement WPA | Cheating, theft, conspiracy may be added in trafficking cases |
| State duty to enforce law | Courts enforce prosecution even in remote areas (Godavarman case) |
| Organized networks treated severely | Enhanced punishment for criminal gangs (WCCB cases) |
| Digital trade is also criminal | Online marketplaces are not immune (Rajesh Kumar case) |
4. Conclusion
Wildlife trafficking is a serious criminal offense in India.
Criminal liability arises under WPA, IPC, IT Act, and other relevant laws.
Both individual poachers and organized networks are punishable.
Courts have consistently emphasized strict deterrence and active enforcement.
Cases like WCCB vs Satish Yadav, Nilakanta Sharma, and Rajesh Kumar show that penalties include imprisonment, fines, and criminal conspiracy charges.
RELATED Blog
comments