Wildlife Protection And Poaching Offences
Poaching refers to the illegal hunting, capturing, or killing of wildlife. In India, wildlife protection is governed primarily by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA). It is one of the strongest environmental laws and regulates hunting, possession, trade, transport, and conservation of wildlife and their products.
1. Key Provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
A. Protected Species
The Act classifies wildlife into Schedules I–VI, where:
Schedule I & II: Highest protection; offences attract the highest penalties.
Schedule III & IV: Lower protection but still punishable.
Schedule V: Vermin (can be hunted).
Schedule VI: Protected plants.
B. Hunting (Section 9)
Hunting of animals listed in Schedules I–IV is completely prohibited except for:
scientific research,
education,
population control,
special circumstances with a permit.
C. Penalties (Sections 51–57)
Key punishment provisions:
For Schedule I or II animals:
Minimum 3 years imprisonment, which may extend to 7 years, and fine of minimum ₹10,000 (often higher in practice).
Repeat offenders face stricter penalties.
D. Trade & Illegal Possession
Illegal possession, sale, transport, or trade of wildlife products (skins, tusks, bones, musk, etc.) constitutes poaching.
E. Forfeiture of Property
Authorities may seize vehicles, weapons, traps, and any materials used in the commission of poaching offences.
Important Case Laws (Detailed Explanations)
I have included six detailed cases as requested (more than 4–5).
1. Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010, Supreme Court)
Facts
Sansar Chand was a notorious poacher involved in large-scale trafficking of skins and parts of tigers, leopards, and other endangered animals. He was accused in multiple cases of killing protected species under Schedule I.
Issues
Whether his actions amounted to serious wildlife offences deserving strict punishment.
Judgment
The Supreme Court emphasized that wildlife crime is equivalent to organized crime and has a severe ecological impact.
The Court upheld the strict penalties under the Act and condemned the organized network of poachers.
Significance
Established that courts must take strict judicial notice of wildlife destruction.
Termed poaching a threat to ecological balance and national heritage.
Widely cited in wildlife jurisprudence.
2. State of Kerala v. P.V. Mathew (2012, Supreme Court)
Facts
The accused possessed ivory items. He argued they were old, inherited objects and not obtained through poaching.
Issues
Whether possession of ivory without documentation constitutes an offence.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that:
Possession itself is an offence unless the accused proves valid ownership prior to the Act.
The burden of proof is on the person possessing wildlife articles.
Significance
Reinforced reverse burden of proof in wildlife offences.
Made it clear that “old ivory” is not automatically exempt.
3. Chief Forest Conservator (Wildlife) v. Nisar Khan (2003, Supreme Court)
Facts
Nisar Khan was accused of transporting a tiger skin illegally. He sought discharge at the early stage on technical grounds.
Issues
Can a person accused of wildlife offences be discharged merely due to procedural issues?
Judgment
The Court held that wildlife cases must not be lightly discharged because:
These offences harm national ecological wealth.
Minor procedural errors do not weaken the essence of the charge.
Significance
Clarified that courts must adopt a strict approach in handling wildlife cases.
Protected the purpose of the Act from being defeated by technical pleas.
4. Balram Kumawat v. Union of India (2003, Supreme Court)
Facts
The petitioner was convicted for possessing bone carvings made presumably from protected species. He challenged the conviction on the ground that the Act did not specifically mention “antique bone carvings.”
Issues
Does the Act cover carved or processed wildlife products?
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that:
The Act applies even to worked, carved, polished, or processed wildlife derivatives.
A narrow interpretation would defeat the object of the Act.
Significance
Strengthened the interpretation of “animal articles” to include all forms of wildlife products, raw or processed.
5. R. Simon v. Union of India (Madras HC, 2015)
Facts
The accused was caught with pangolin scales. He argued that pangolins were not yet listed under Schedule I at the time of possession.
Issues
Does possession of scales from an animal later added to Schedule I constitute an offence?
Judgment
The High Court held:
Even if the animal is added later to Schedule I, possessing parts of a protected species still attracts penal consequences unless lawfully acquired.
Policy changes related to protection should be strictly implemented.
Significance
Established dynamic protection—species added later to the Schedule still attract full protection.
Benefited pangolin conservation.
6. State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao (2008, Supreme Court)
Facts
Forest officials sanctioned the shooting of a tiger considered “man-eating,” but claims arose that no valid order existed and the killing was unlawful.
Issues
When can authorities order the destruction of a protected animal?
Judgment
The Supreme Court held:
Killing a Schedule I animal requires strict adherence to Section 11 (permission for hunting).
Authorities must prove “danger to human life” and the necessity of killing.
Significance
Prevents misuse of the “man-eater” label.
Restricts arbitrary killing of protected species under the guise of human safety.
Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has consistently interpreted wildlife protection laws strictly, recognizing that poaching harms ecological balance, national heritage, and biodiversity.
The above cases demonstrate the following legal principles:
Wildlife crimes are treated seriously and often compared to organized crime.
Possession of wildlife parts requires strict documentation.
Processed wildlife products are also regulated.
Permission for killing protected animals is granted only under strict conditions.
Courts do not allow technicalities to shield offenders.
RELATED Blog
0 comments