Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of 2 Men Accused Of Illegal Trade Of Tiger Skin & Wild Animal Products

The Court partly allowed the Appeal filed by two convicts under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, by upholding the conviction but modifying the sentence imposed by the Bombay High Court.

A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held, “The present lis concerns offences under the Act. It need not be over-emphasised that in the present times, the area left open to the wildlife ecosystem is diminishing everyday due to massive urbanisation, colonization, industrialisation and land-use for various commercial purposes, the threat of wild life, flora and fauna, vanishing and even becoming extinct is real and not imaginary. Thus, no doubt, a very strict approach is required to be taken by the concerned Governments and authorities. If guilt of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt for any offence under the Act, the punishment meted out should be appropriate and commensurate to the offence, as laid down in the Act.”

AOR Dharmendra Kumar Sinha appeared for the Appellants, while ASG Aishwarya Bhati represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellants were apprehended for allegedly indulging in the illegal trade of tiger skin and wild animal products. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had received secret information that the Appellants were likely to deliver a huge quantity of illegal skin and products in Nagpur, Maharashtra.

The Appellants were found in possession of tiger skin, antler horns, claws, teeth, bones, and skulls. The seized items were analysed by experts who confirmed they were from scheduled wild animals.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court stated, “However, having stated the above, the standard of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ still holds the field. Any infringement on the life and liberty of an accused should only be countenanced when the prosecution meets the standard supra.”

“In the present scenario, much can be said about the vague investigation which shows that it has been open-ended without delving into the relevant aspects which were necessarily required to be gone into. Going by the prosecution version, huge quantity of banned/illegal animal products having been recovered, it would obviously mean that there would have been a supplier (either the ‘Madhu’ adverted to earlier, or someone else) of the seized products, and prospective buyer(s), since the prosecution itself stated that the products were to be handed over to some other person. What we can gather is that the CBI team did not have the patience to wait for the transaction to reach its logical conclusion, as the interception of only the accused took place,” the Bench remarked.

“With regard to the supplier, it is apparent that no investigation in this behalf was pursued by the CBI. It has not even been indicated as to how the appellants were involved with and had links with the trade. Pausing for a moment, we would like to clarify that this does not absolve the appellants of their liability of discharging the presumption operating against them by virtue of Section 57 of the Act. Even the Forensic Report prepared by the Wildlife Institute of India only mentions that the material belonged to tiger, panther, leopard, hyena, chital but the age of the animal products was not determined,” the Court further remarked.

“This, in our view, indicates a casual approach in conducting the investigation. It is gainsaid that in matters of the like herein, the first and foremost duty is on the investigators, including the responsibility of ensuring full and proper forensic tests as also in-depth investigation which encompassing all possibilities, such that the chain of events from the beginning till the end is complete,” the Bench stated.

The Bench held, “Coming to the quantum of sentence, it is evincible that the appellants at the time of the offence were young in age. Moreover, it is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellants had themselves poached/killed the animals whose bones/claws/antlers/products were recovered. Viewed thus, we are inclined to reduce the period of the sentences awarded by the Courts below.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “Accordingly, while upholding and affirming the convictions, the Impugned Judgment is modified by substituting the sentences awarded to the appellants under Section 51 of the Act with three years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) each, to be paid within eight weeks from the date of this Judgment. Failure to pay the fine shall result in further incarceration for three months.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Rajesh & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 705)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Dharmendra Kumar Sinha and Rajat Joseph; Advocates Muzammil Hussain, Raju Sonkar, Kanisk Mor and Shweta Sand

Respondents: ASG Aishwarya Bhati; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande; Advocates Chitrangda Rashtaravara, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Shreya Jain, Preet S. Phanse and Siddharth Dharmadhikari

Click here to read/download the Judgment