-
by sayum
19 May 2026 7:58 AM
"The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt still holds the field... But guilt, once proved, must be met with proportionate punishment" – Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah delivered a significant ruling concerning illegal wildlife trade under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Upholding the conviction of the appellants for illegal possession of tiger skins, bones, and other wildlife articles, the Court reduced the sentence from six years to three years' simple imprisonment, noting the youth of the offenders and absence of direct poaching involvement. The decision reaffirms the necessity of rigorous prosecution in wildlife offences while acknowledging procedural lapses and mitigating factors.
In March 2001, based on secret information, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) apprehended two accused, Makbool Ahmed and Rajesh, at a petrol pump in Nagpur. The duo was found in possession of a tiger skin, claws, antlers, skulls, and approximately 23 kilograms of tiger bones stored in a Maruti Esteem car. The seizure was witnessed by two independent public officials: a regional labour officer and the petrol pump manager.
A complaint under Sections 49-B and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was filed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced them to six years of rigorous imprisonment in 2007. The conviction was successively upheld by the Sessions Court in 2013 and by the Bombay High Court in 2023, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Presumption under Section 57 of the Wild Life Act – Burden Lies on Accused to Rebut Possession
The core legal issue revolved around whether the appellants were rightly convicted under the Wildlife Act, given alleged discrepancies in the investigation and the trap.
The Court, referring to the presumption under Section 57 of the Act, emphasized:
“This does not absolve the appellants of their liability of discharging the presumption operating against them...”
It held that recovery of banned wildlife products from the possession of the accused created a statutory presumption, and the burden lay on them to provide a credible explanation — which they failed to do.
The Supreme Court acknowledged flaws in the investigation, especially the failure to track the suppliers or prospective buyers of the seized materials:
“...The CBI team did not have the patience to wait for the transaction to reach its logical conclusion... It has not even been indicated how the appellants were involved...”
However, it was firm that such lapses did not vitiate the conviction:
“The above lacunae do not fully aid the appellants... The prosecution has succeeded in connecting the recovery of the materials to the appellants.”
The Court considered the testimony of two independent witnesses — PW1 and PW2 — credible and unimpeached. Their evidence was pivotal in upholding the conviction: “They can be termed uninterested neutral witnesses... the substratum of their testimonies has not been dislodged.”
Wildlife Offences Require Stringent Enforcement
The judgment began with a powerful reiteration of the rationale behind the Wild Life Protection Act:
“...Even in Sanctuaries and National Parks the protection afforded to wild life needs to be improved... The existing State laws are not only outdated but provide punishments which are not commensurate...”
It highlighted the alarming depletion of wildlife and stressed that offences under the Act must be met with stringent prosecution and adequate sentencing:
“The threat of wildlife... vanishing and even becoming extinct is real and not imaginary.”
Modification of Sentence: Youth of Accused and Lack of Direct Poaching Considered
Though it upheld the conviction, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence:
“It is evincible that the appellants at the time of the offence were young in age... It is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellants had themselves poached/killed the animals...”
The sentence was modified to:
Three years’ simple imprisonment under Section 51 of the Act
Fine of ₹25,000 each, to be paid to the Secretary, Animal Welfare Board of India
Three months' further imprisonment in default of payment
The Supreme Court’s judgment strikes a balanced approach — it underscores the gravity of wildlife offences and the seriousness with which such crimes must be prosecuted, while also acknowledging and correcting procedural oversights and personal mitigating factors. The conviction remains untouched, but the sentencing was tempered by considerations of fairness and proportionality.
Date of Decision: May 15, 2025
