The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

History:
Wildlife protection has been a focal point of every ruler in India. The earliest law on wildlife
protection was created by Ashoka, the King of Maghdha. The first codified law on wildlife
protection was created by the British and was called the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1887. This
Act protected wild species of birds which were hunted especially during their breeding season.
The British subsequently passed the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912 and amended
it in 1935, but both proved futile in their attempt to protect wildlife. With the Second World War,
wildlife protection took a backseat but with the independence of India, the Constituent Assembly
in the Draft Constitution placed "Protection of Wild Birds and Wild Animals" at entry No.20 in
the State List and the State Legislature has been given power to legislate. It was only in the late
1960’s which saw a concern for the depleting numbers of wildlife due to illegal poaching.1
Passed on:
The Act was passed on 9th September, 1972. Amendments to the Act were brought in 1976,
1982, 1991 and 1993. The last amendment was brought in 2003 which made penalties much
more stringent.2

1 Environmental Law -H. D. Pithawalla

2 Sayan S. Das Environmental Law in India

1
 Environmental law

Purpose of the Act:

The Act protects wild animals, birds and plants by prohibiting hunting, harvesting of species,
poaching, illegal trade in wildlife and derivatives and protection of endangered flora and fauna in
protected areas. Structure of the Act: The Act is fairly extensive with 66 sections divided into ten
chapters and six schedules. The Act applies to the whole of India except the northern state of
Jammu and Kashmir. This state has its own law on protecting wildlife. Under Schedule I and
Part II of Schedule II any offence has the highest penalties and species under these Schedules are
given absolute protection. Penalties are less for the species listed under these Schedules under
Schedule III and Schedule IV. Schedule V lists animals which cannot be hunted and Schedule VI
lists plants which cannot be cultivated and grown in plantations. 3

Definitions under the Act:

3 Sayan S. Das Environmental Law in India

2
 Environmental law

Section 2 of the Act defines core terms.

"animal" includes amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles, and their young, and also includes,
in the cases of birds and reptiles, their eggs.4
"animal article" means an article made from any captive or wild animal, other than vermin, and
includes an article or object in which the whole or any part of such animal has been used and an
article made therefrom.

"hunting" includes
(a) capturing, killing, poisoning, snaring, or trapping any wild animal, and every attempt to do so
(b) driving any wild animal for any of the purposes specified in sub clause
(c) injuring, destroying or taking any body part of any such animal, or in the case of wild birds or
reptiles, disturbing or damaging the eggs or nests of such birds or reptiles. 5

"taxidermy" means the curing, preparation or preservation of trophies.

4 Environmental Law -H. D. Pithawalla

5 Sayan S. Das Environmental Law in India

3
 Environmental law

"trophy" means the whole or any part of any captive or wild animal (other than vermin) which
has been kept or preserved by any means, whether artificial or natural. This includes: (a) rugs,
skins, and specimens of such animals mounted in whole or in part through a process of
taxidermy (b) antler, horn, rhinoceros horn, feather, nail, tooth, musk, eggs, and nests.

"uncured trophy" means the whole or any part of any captive animal (other than vermin)
which has not undergone a process of taxidermy. This includes a freshly killed wild animal,
ambergris, musk and other animal products.6

"vermin" means any wild animal specified in Schedule V. 7

"wildlife" includes any animal, bees, butterflies, crustacean, fish and moths; and aquatic or land
vegetation which forms part of any habitat

6 Environmental Law -H. D. Pithawalla

7 Sayan S. Das Environmental Law in India

4
 Environmental law

Provisions of the Act:

Prohibition on Hunting- The Act expressly prohibits hunting of wild animals under Schedules
1-4 except in circumstances when the animal becomes a danger to human life and property
(standing crops and land) and is diseased beyond cure. In such a case a written permission from
the Chief Wildlife Warden needs to be taken and the act needs to be recorded in writing. A
person can hunt only when The Chief Wildlife Warden gives written permission when the
purpose is for education and scientific research and management, collection of specimens and
derivation, collection or preparation of snake-venom for the manufacture of life saving drugs. 8

Prohibition on picking, uprooting specified Plants- The Act prohibits a person from willfully
pick, uproot, damage, acquire or collect any specified plant from an area specified and preserved
by the Government for wildlife unless the purpose is for scientific and education which has been
expressly sanctioned by the Chief Wildlife Warden. Unless a valid license has been granted by
the Chief Wildlife Warden, no one can trade in specified plants and purchase them from

8 Sayan S. Das Environmental Law in India

5
 Environmental law

unauthorised dealers. These specified plants for all purposes are property of the State
Governments.
National Parks, Sanctuaries and Closed Areas- The Act deals with National Parks,
Sanctuaries and Closed Areas. If an area is rich in ecological, faunal, floral, natural or zoological
significance, it can be declared as a sanctuary by the State Government. This gives them an
opportunity to develop these areas exclusively for wildlife in a protected environment. Entry is
restricted into these areas unless expressly granted. Any illegal activity within these areas is
liable to be punished under the Indian Penal Code. Those acts are not permitted within these
areas which destroy, exploit, or remove any wildlife from a National Park destroy or damage the
habitat or any wild animal and deprive any wild animal or its habitat within such National Park.
Grazing of any livestock is not permitted in a National Park. 9

Zoos and Zoo Authority: The Act recognises and constitutes the Central Zoo Authority. This
Authority will place rules which will serve as minimum standards for the animals kept in zoos. A
zoo cannot operate without the recognition of the Authority. The Authority has among the many
duties, to specify the minimum standards for housing, upkeep and veterinary care of the animals
kept in a zoo; evaluate and assess the functioning of zoos with respect to the standards or the
norms as may be prescribed; recognise or derecongnize zoos; and identify endangered species of

9 Sayan S. Das Environmental Law in India

6
 Environmental law

wild animals for purposes of captive breeding and assigning responsibility in this regard to a zoo.
10

Trade or Commerce in Wild Animals: The Act provides rules for Trade or Commerce in Wild
Animals, Animal Articles and Trophies and prohibitions on them. Wild Animals under this Act
are property of the Government and any illegal act towards them will be a crime under the Indian
Penal Code. Without the express sanction of the Chief Wildlife Warden no wild animal can be
sold, offered to be sold or transported. The forest rangers or concerned officers can seize any
captive animal, wild animal, animal article or any specified plant from the possession of any
offender and can arrest him without warrant.

10 Sayan S. Das Environmental Law in India

7
 Environmental law

Objectives of the Wild Life Protection Act:

● To prohibit hunting of wild animals; birds, etc. and impose punishment for violating the
same. ...
● To provide security to animals that are not in danger of becoming extinct.
● To delineate animals that can be hunted like ducks and deer's for this purpose hunter has
to apply for licence to te district forest officer who will allow a hunter to shoot during
specific season & restricted area any infringement can led to cancellation of hunting
licence.11
● To help Cultivation and plant life and give teeth to setting up more protected animal
parks.
● To give sweeping powers to law enforcement authorities to punish anybody under the
Act.
● To empower the Central Govt.& State Govt. to declare certain area as sanctuaries &
National Parks.12

Penalties under the Act: After the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2003 was passed,
punishment for noncompliance with the provisions of the Act have been made more stringent.

11 thefactfactor.com/facts/law/civil_law/environmental_laws/wild-life-protection-act/1454/
12 thefactfactor.com/facts/law/civil_law/environmental_laws/wild-life-protection-act/1454/

8
 Environmental law

Punishment for offences related to Schedule I, Part II of Schedule II, hunting and altering the
boundaries of a sanctuary or national park would be a minimum imprisonment for three years
which may extend to seven years, with a minimum fine of Rs. 10,000. For a subsequent offence
of this nature, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than three years but may extend to
seven years with a minimum fine of Rs. 25,000. Provision of bail for offences under Schedule I
and Part II of Schedule II will be given only when the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity of opposing the release on bail; and where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The reward for intelligence gathering about wildlife crime is now 50% of the entire money
which is gathered in a case. A reward up to Rs 10,000 is given to each informant who detects a
crime or gives inputs on a crime which could take place.13
Persons can only inherit trophies, articles and live animals which fall under schedule-I and part
II of Schedule- II. They cannot sell or gift such articles. The exception is live elephants. Offences
related to trade and commerce in trophies, animals articles etc. derived from certain animals
attracts a term of imprisonment up to three years and/or a fine up to Rs. 25,000/-.Punishment on
the lines of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have been proposed for
criminals with a past record of crimes against wildlife. Officials have also been given special
powers to evict encroachers into protected areas.
Conclusion:

Wildlife conservation includes all human efforts to preserve wild animals from extinction. It
involves the protection and wise management of wild species of their environment. Some species
have become extinct due to natural activities.

Case Law:

Wildlife vs . Ashok Kumar & Ors. on 11 April, 2018

IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT:ACCMM(Spl. Acts):

13 Sayan S. Das Environmental Law in India

9
 Environmental law

CENTRAL:TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:-

1. The present matter was remanded back by Ld. Sessions Court vide orders dated 13.07.2017
and 24.07.2017 with the direction to put specific questions to the accused persons with respect to
raising of presumption U/s 57 of Wildlife (Protection) Act. Accordingly, the additional statement
of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 26.09.2017.

2. Brief facts of the complaint are that on the basis of secret information received by Inspector
Vivek Tyagi of Special Cell of Delhi police accused persons namely Ashok Kumar S/o Sh.
Hakumat Rai, Nand Kumar @ Nandu S/o Sh. Bhaiya Ram and Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Rai Singh
were apprehended with one baby leopard skin having brown colour and black spots (uncured
skin). It is mentioned that a raiding team headed by Inspector Vivek Tyagi including SI Vinay
Tyagi, SI Abhinash, ASI Dinesh, HC Anil, HC Pradeep Kumar, Ct. Sat Prakash and informer
was constituted which reached near Birla Mandir Red Light, Kali Bari Marg, New Delhi and on
identification by secret informer the accused persons come there in an Indica Car bearing
Registration No. HR-55 DT-6580 driven by accused Naresh Kumar while the other two were
sitting in the car, were apprehended after signal by decoy customer HC Pradeep Kumar. It is
further mentioned that as accused persons failed to produce any legal document or any authority
to possess or keep or to deal with the skin, same was seized and rukka was prepared and FIR No.
35/2010 was got registered at PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. All the three accused
persons were arrested vide their arrest memos. The Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 14
CC No.301845/16 2 of 20 vehicles was also seized vide seizure memo. Disclosure statements of
accused persons were recorded. It is alleged that the seized leopard skin is a scheduled15

animal specified in Schedule-I of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and that accused persons have
contravened Section 2(2),9,39,49,49(B)(1) and 52 r/w Section 51of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972. Hence, the present complaint.

14 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620
15 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

10
 Environmental law

3. All accused were summoned and on their appearance, copy of complaint and other documents
were supplied to them and the matter was fixed for pre-charge evidence.

4. In order to substantiate the allegations, the complainant examined five witnesses i.e. HC
Pradeep Kumar (PW-1), IO Inspector Vivek Tyagi (PW-2), SI Yudhbeer Singh (PW-3), SI
Vinay Tyagi (PW-4) and WLI V.B. Dasan as PW-5, in pre-charge evidence.

5. Witnesses PW-1 to PW-4 are the material witnesses who deposed about recovery/investigation
proceedings and PW-5 Sh. V.B. Dasan filed the complaint on behalf of the complainant
department.

6. PW-1 HC Pradeep Kumar deposed that on 06.07.2010 at about 11.00 am a secret informer
informed Inspector Vivek Tyagi that some person will come to Kali Bari Marg near Red light,
Birla Mandir alongwith the skin of wild animals. Thereafter, Inspector Vivek Tyagi shared the
said information with the senior officer and after entering the information in rojnamcha, he
(witness PW-1) alongwith inspector Vivek Tyagi, SI Vinay Tyagi, SI Avinash, ASI Dinesh
Kumar, Ct. Satya Prakash and secret informer left the office in two vehicles and one motor cycle.
He further deposed that they all reached in front of Birla Mandir at about Wild Life Vs. Ashok
Kumar & Ors. CC No.301845/16 3 of 20 12.40 pm and parked their vehicles on the road. He
further deposed that inspector Vivek Tyagi requested 5/7 passerby to join the investigation, but
none agreed. He further deposed that inspector Vivek Tyagi made him a decoy customer and
alongwith secret informer they stood near Red light and started waiting for the accused persons.
He further deposed that at about 1.45 pm , one white Indica Car bearing no. HR 55 DT 6580
came from Gol Dak Khana Side and stopped near the Red light on the road. The secret informer
pointed towards the said car and revealed the names of the accused persons who were present in
the car. He further deposed that at about 1.50 pm, he along with secret informer reached the said
accused persons and started dealing with them regarding purchase of leopard skin. He was
informed by accused Ashok Kumar that they have three leopard skins, they have brought only
one and remaining two leopard skins are with Rajesh and Sameer. He further deposed that
accused Ashok told the price of the said leopard skin to be Rs. 8 lacs. He further deposed that
accused Nand Kumar took out one polythene from the said vehicle and handed over the same to

11
 Environmental law

accused Ashok Kumar. Accused Ashok Kumar and Naresh opened the said polythene and took
out one brown colour skin bearing black colour spots. Witness further deposed that after seeing
the said skin, he gave signal by lifting right hand in the air, to the raiding team at about 2.00 pm
and after receiving the signal, all the police officials surrounded all the accused and apprehended
them. He further deposed that SI Vinay Tyagi seized the said leopard skin and all the accused
along with the leopard skin were taken to their office where WLI Sh. V.B. Dasan was called
from the office of Wildlife department who came and inspected the said leopard skin and
identified the same to be of baby leopard. Thereafter, SI Vinay Tyagi prepared the pulanda of the
said skin, sealed and seized the pulanda vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A, FIR was prepared Wild
Life Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. CC No.301845/16 4 of 20 and SI Yudhvir seized the car
of the accused persons vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B. He further deposed that IO interrogated
all the accused persons and arrested them vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/C, PW-1/D and PW-1/E.
The witness identified the said leopard skin Ex. P-1, in the Court. This witness was cross-
examined at length by Ld. counsels for the accused wherein he denied various suggestions given
by Ld. Defence counsels.16

7. PW-2 Inspector Vivek Tyagi deposed on the same lines as PW-

1. He too deposed about the investigation and proceedings conducted by the raiding
party at the spot. He further deposed about the personal search memo of the accused
Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C. This witness was also cross-examined at
length.

8. PW-3 is SI Yudhbeer Singh. He deposed that he received the copy of Tehrir, seizure memo of
animal skin and case property and also received the custody of accused persons namely Ashok
Kumar, Nand Kumar and Naresh. He further deposed about the arrest memo and personal search
memo and further deposed that he visited the spot during investigation and prepared the site plan
Ex. PW-3/A and recorded disclosure statements of accused Ex. PW-3/B to PW-3/D and also
seized the car. He further deposed that he deposited the case property in malkhana and produced
the same alongwith accused in the concerned court on 07.07.2010. He further deposed that the

16 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

12
 Environmental law

the case property along with case file was handed over to wildlife department, Delhi and
recorded the statement of witnesses on 06.07.2010. He identified the car seized vide Ex. PW-
1/B.

9. PW-4 is SI Vinay Tyagi who deposed about receiving of secret Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar &
Ors. CC No.301845/16 5 of 20 information, apprehending the accused persons, recovery of
leopard skin(uncured) from the possession of the accused persons and about other formalities
conducted during investigation and proved rukka Ex. PW-4/A which was prepared by him.17

10. PW-5 is Wildlife Inspector Sh. V.B. Dasan. He deposed that on 06.07.2010, he received a
call from Special Cell of Delhi Police, Lodhi Colony regarding recovery of one leopard skin and
reached their office on the same day where SI Vinay Tyagi produced one skin which was
recovered from the accused persons. He further deposed that he identified the said skin as
uncured leopard skin measuring 101x35 cm. He further deposed that on 07.07.2010, SI Yudhvir
handed over the seized property Ex. PW-5/A in a sealed condition which was received by him
upon the court order and on 11.08.2010, he also received a case file from SI Yudhvir Singh vide
Road Certificate Ex. PW-5/B on the basis of which he filed the present complaint Ex. PW-5/C.
He identified the case property in the Court.

11. After pre charge evidence, a charge under section 39/49/49B(1)/52 r/w Section 51 of the Act
were framed against accused Naresh Kumar and U/s 49/49B(1)/52 against Ashok Kumar and
Nand Kumar on the allegation that they were found in possession and dealing of one baby
leopard skin (uncured) and they failed to show any valid licence or document for keeping the
said leopard skin which is specified in schedule-1 of the Act. All the accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.

12. All the witnesses were recalled in post charge evidence, wherein they adopted their testimony
recorded during their pre-charge Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.CC No.301845/16 6 of 20
evidence. These witnesses were cross-examined at length by Ld. Defence counsels.

17 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

13
 Environmental law

13. After completion of the post charge evidence, statement of accused recorded u/s 313 r/w 281
of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.). Accused denied all the allegations
and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case and further submitted that they do not
want to lead any defence evidence. However, in compliance of orders of Ld. Sessions Court
further statement of accused was recorded and all incriminating evidence with respect to their
possession of leopard skin were put to them. Accused Nand Kumar also led defence evidence. In
his defence evidence, in terms of section 315 Cr.P.C, he examined himself as DW-1, apart from
two experts from Wildlife institute, Dr. S.P. Goel and Sh. C.P. Sharma.

14. DWs S.P. Goel and C.P. Sharma both were numbered as DW-2, hence testimony of Dr. S.P.
Goel shall be read as DW-2 and of Sh. C.P. Sharma as DW-2A.18

15. DW-1 i.e. accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in case in the year 2010 date of
which he do not remember. He further stated that while he was doing business of selling socks as
roadside vendor in Karol Bagh, one car stopped him and asked him to sit in the car. He further
stated that initially he refused but lateron, he entered the car in which five persons were already
sitting and one of them deboarded the car at some distance having one small bag. He further
stated that he was taken to Lodhi Colony police station where his belonging were taken away and
he was produced before the Court but he was not told for what offence he has been arrested. He
stated that he Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. CC No.301845/16 7 of 20 met co-accused in
the present case while he was produced before the Court. During cross examination by Ld. APP
he failed to state the name of the persons from whom he used to purchase the socks for selling.
He further stated that while he was standing at Karol Bagh some of the passerby were also
present. He admitted that persons who were sitting in the car were in the civil clothes and have
not shown any weapon to make him sit in the car. He also admitted that he had not made any
complaint regarding his false implication to any authority. He also admitted that he has never
told the Court that he has been falsely implicated when he was produced before the Court. He
denied the suggestion that he was apprehended at red light Birla Mandir on 06.07.2010
alongwith Naresh Kumar and Ashok Kumar with leopard skins. He also denied that he was
dealing with Pradeep for sale of leopard skin. He admitted his signatures on Ex.PW-1/A and

18 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

14
 Environmental law

PW-1/B but claimed that he do not know when these signatures were obtained. He also admitted
his signatures in Ex. PW-1/D.19

16. DW-2 Dr. S.P. Goel during his examination stated that he is expert in examination of wild
life items including skins, trophies etc. of wild life animals. He stated that various methods are
used for identification of wildlife articles including morphological examinations, hair
characteristics and DNA methods in the meat cases where it is difficult to identify the species
based on morphological features. He stated that during examinations, he gets fake skins but those
are entirely different based on the actual morphological characteristics of the species, hence,
these can be identified on the features of the wild life species. He stated that based on the visual
examinations only, the type of wild life skin can be identified by an expert. He explained that
Morphological means typical characteristics of that species which Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar
& Ors.CC No.301845/16 8 of 20 commonly deployed for species identification. This includes
stripe patterns, blotch patterns, spots, colour, horns which are usually present in most of the
skins. He further stated that during examination of the skins he also adopt tests which includes
microscopic hair characteristics and reference samples along with the physical examination to
confirm the identity of the animal skin. He stated that skin which have typical characteristics like
of tiger, leopard, jungle cat or any skin having any typical spot patterns can be identified with
100% certainty through visual examination only. He admitted that leopard skins are being sent
regularly for the examination He further stated Leopard has got typical blotch pattern where
inner part of the blotch is light yellow to dark yellow colour and there is no change in the pattern
and colour with respect to the age or the sex of the animal. He further deposed that it is not
possible to create fake skin having similar pattern/characteristics of natural skin of an wild
animal with artificial methods and this is due to the natural characteristics which are found in an
animal. He admitted that there is manual issued by WCCB but showed his ignorance where it is
mentioned in its preface that animals cannot be identified with visual examination only. He
further stated that it is a uniform practice to conduct corroborative tests to confirm with 100%
certainty the nature of the item received for examination. He stated that based on the items,
appropriate scientific approach is adopted for the identification of the item. He further deposed

19 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

15
 Environmental law

that they regularly and uniformly perform the microscopic hair characteristics and reference
samples along with the physical examination to confirm the identity of the leopard skin and other
animal skin.20

During cross examination, he stated that there is no instance where the initial opinion based on
visual examination has been changed after conducting further microscopic and other tests.

Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.CC No.301845/16 9 of 20

17. DW-2A Sh. Chandra Prakash Sharma, a Senior Technical Officer from Wildlife Institute of
India, Dehradun deposed that he has analysed around 900 wildlife cases and provided scientific
opinion. He further stated that he has applied morphological techniques which includes visible
characteristics that give fair idea about the species and for corroboration microscopic hair
analysis is also done. He stated that he is aware of the manual published by Wildlife Crime
Control Bureau (WCCB) for the identification of animal articles and admitted that as per its
preface initial test are recommended for legal action. He further stated that at Wildlife Institute of
India, a separate similar manual being followed for the purpose of examination of samples. He
further stated that fake leopard skins can be easily identified because of the unnatural blotching
pattern which is different from the real leopard skins. He stated that they also do the microscopic
hair analysis of the fake skin to confirm the skin type. He further stated that he can distinguish
between the skin of a leopard cub and adult leopard. He further stated that they do not have any
manual/instructions in the Wildlife Institute which says that only by mere visual examination, the
skin type can be ascertained. But stated that with experience of more than 20 years, he can
identify the skin type by mere visual examination also. He further stated that he has not given
any report only on the basis of visual examination and has conducted all the examination as per
the SOPs.21

During cross examination he stated that he has never changed his opinion formed after visual
examination of the skin on further conducting microscopic examination.

20 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620
21 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

16
 Environmental law

18. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions in advance on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the relevant records
and also the Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. CC No.301845/16 10 of 20 relevant provisions
of the Act. Relevant provisions of Section 39/ 49/ 49B(1) of the Act have reproduced for ready
reference....

39. Wild Animals, etc. to be Government property:

(1) Every---

(a) Wild animal, other than vermin, which is hunted u/s 11 or sub- section (1) of section 29 or
sub-section (6) of section 35 or kept or [bred in captivity or hunted] in contravention of any
provision of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder or found dead, or killed by mistake;
and

(b) animal article, trophy or uncured trophy or meat derived from any wild animal referred to in
clause (a) in respect of which any offence against this Act or any rule or order made thereunder
has been committed;

[(c)ivory imported into India and an article made from such ivory in respect of which any
offence against this Act or any rule or order made thereunder has been committed;

(d) vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for committing an offence and has
been seized under the provisions of this Act,] shall be the property of the State Government,
and , where such animal is hunted in a sanctuary or National Park declared by the Central
Government, such animal or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat [derived from
such animal, or any vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool used in such hunting] shall be the
property of the Central Government.

(2) Any person who obtains, by any means, the possession of Government property, shall, within
forty-eight hours from obtaining of such possession to the nearest police station or the authorised

17
 Environmental law

officer and shall, if so required,hand over such property to the officer-in-charge of such police
station or such authorised officer, as the case may be.22

(3) No person shall, without the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or
th e authorised officer--

Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.CC No.301845/16 11 of 20

(a)acquire or keep in his possession, custody or control, or

(b)transfer to any person, whether by way of gift, sale or otherwise, or

(c) destroy or damage, such Government property.

49. Purchase of captive animal, etc, by a person other than a licensee.- No person shall purchase,
receive or acquire any captive animal, wild animal, other than vermin, or any animal article,
trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived therefrom otherwise than from a dealer or from a person
authorised to sell or otherwise transfer the same under this act.

49B(1). Prohibition of dealings in trophies, animal articles, etc. derived from scheduled animals -
Subject to the other provisions of this section, on and after the specified date, no person shall,-

(a) commence or carry on the business as-

(I) a manufacturer of, or dealer in scheduled animal articles; or (ia) a dealer in ivory imported
into India or articles made therefrom or a manufacturer of such articles; or]

(ii) a taxidermist with respect to any scheduled animals or any parts of such animals; or

(iii) a dealer in trophy or uncured trophy derived from any scheduled animal; or

(iv) a dealer in any captive animals being scheduled animals; or

(v) a dealer in meat derived from any scheduled animal; or

22 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

18
 Environmental law

(b) cook or serve meat derived from any scheduled animal in any eating-house.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "eating-house" has the same meaning as the
Explanation below sub-section (1) of section 44.23

19. Ld. APP for the state has argued that all the complainant witnesses have fully supported the
case of the prosecution and complainant proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. She pointed
out Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.CC No.301845/16 12 of 20 that in view of Section 134
of Indian Evidence Act, the number of witnesses who were examined should not decide the fate
of the case and it is the quality of the witness which should be considered. She also pointed out
that the measurement of the skin recovered has been proved by the witnesses and in view of the
judgment in the matter of State of U.P. Vs. Pyare Lal:Criminal Appeal No.622 of 1988, AIR
1995 SC 1159, case of the complainant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

20. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the accused persons vehemently argued that all the witnesses of
recovery examined by the complainant are police officials and in the absence of any public
witnesses, their testimony alone should not be held sufficient for convicting the accused person
for the offences for which they have been charged with. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there
were various contradictions in the deposition of prosecution witnesses regarding the identity of
the vehicles of the raiding team, who brought out the skin from the car, colour of the skin etc.
Ld. Defence counsels further argued that even the relevant DD entries are not on record and site
plan does not bear the signatures of any witness and no vehicle number was stated by any of the
witnesses. It is pointed out that the raiding team also did not offer their personal search before
apprehending the accused persons. Lastly, the Ld. defence counsels argued that in view of these
contradictions coupled with the fact of non joining of independent witnesses, the entire
complainant's story becomes doubtful and thus benefit of doubt should be given to the accused
persons. It is also argued that no photographs or seal impression were produced. Further, Ld.
Defence counsel for accused Naresh submits that accused Naresh was merely a taxi driver and
was not aware about anything transpired between the remaining Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar &
Ors. CC No.301845/16 13 of 20 accused and the police and having no conscious possession of

23 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

19
 Environmental law

the alleged recovered skin. It is also argued that no identification was put on the case property
and PW-5 admitted that he is not an expert who has given only opinion without any reasons.24

21. On the other hand, the defence witness has stated categorically that scientific analysis is
required to form 100% opinion regarding the nature of the case property.

22. Heard. Considered.

23. Whether non joining of independent public witnesses have proved fatal for the case of the
complainant:- As far as non joining of independent witnesses are concerned, the law is crystal
clear that police witnesses are as trustworthy and credible as any independent witness can be.
The testimony of police witnesses should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any
other witness and there is no principal of law that without corroboration their testimony cannot
be relied upon. It is not a proper approach to distrust and suspect the testimonies of police
witnesses without good grounds and to this effect help can be taken from the judgment titled as
"Karamjeet Singh Vs. State : AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1311. Therefore, non joining of public
witness is not fatal to the prosecution case. In any case, if independent person is not willing to be
a witness, the prosecution cannot be blamed and evidence of other witnesses cannot be
discarded. The argument of Ld. counsel that even the police officials of PS Mandir Marg were
also not joined proves fatal for the case of prosecution is rejected as it is not obligatory upon the
raiding team to call the police officials from PS Mandir Marg as special cell, Delhi Police itself
is a designated Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.CC No.301845/16 14 of 20 police station and
such non joining cannot be seen with suspicion.

24. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of cross examination of the witnesses,
Ld. Defence Counsel did not give any suggestion as to why the witnesses are deposing against
the accused. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the accused that witnesses were inimical
towards the accused. Witnesses have totally supported the case of the prosecution regarding the
recovery of uncured leopard skin and also they all are corroborating each other on all material
aspects and there are no major inconsistency or contradictions in their statement.25

24 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620
25 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

20
 Environmental law

Their statements on record are found to be cogent, inspires the confidence of the Court and there
is no reason to disbelieve the same. Further, minor discrepancies which have been pointed out,

I am of the view that they are not of such nature which create infirmity in the complainant's
case. I do not find any reason that why complainant would falsely implicate the accused.

25. Whether the identification of skin by Wildlife inspector is sufficient or not:- It is further
argued that the genuineness of the case property is doubtful as same were not sent to any
Wildlife Institute for expert opinion. Only visual identification was carried out by the wildlife
inspector and therefore, it can not be assumed to be conclusive proof of the identification.

26. In rebuttal, learned APP argued that PW5 WLI Sh. V.B. Dasan has clearly identified the case
property and stated that recovered skin is of leopard. Learned APP submitted that even if the
case property was not sent to CFSL for expert opinion, it is not fatal to the prosecution story
because a WLI inspector can very well identify the skins and this court is Wild Life Vs. Ashok
Kumar & Ors.CC No.301845/16 15 of 20 in agreement with this contention. PW5 WLI Sh. V.B.
Dasan saw the case property at the police station after its recovery and by virtue of his training
and experience being Wild Life Inspector he is competent to identify the wild animal skin. It is
pertinent to note that a wild life inspector can not be said to be a common man. A wild life
inspector can very well identify the wild life articles/animal even if he does not have any
diploma or degree in the same. The seized case property was identified by the Wildlife
Inspector/PW5 Sh. V.B.Dasan who is competent to identify animal articles as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Criminal Appeal No.622 of 1988, AIR 1995 SC 1159, titled as Pyare
Lal vs State (Delhi Administration)".26

27. Moreover, DW-2 and DW-2A who both are experts in their respective field of analysis of
wildlife articles have categorically stated that with experience they can identify correctly the
species of the skin by mere visual examination also. Even in cross examination they have stated
that their opinion arrived after visual examination has never been changed on further scientific
tests conducted. The emphasis of Ld. counsel for accused on the manual of WCCB which is Ex.
DW-1/A is misplaced as it nowhere stated that the additional scientific tests are mandatory for
26 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

21
 Environmental law

identification of the species. It only says that additional tests like morphological, microscopic
analytical and forensic tests may have to be undertaken for legal action. By no stretch of
imagination, such guidelines could be inferred as mandatory. Accused Nand Kumar has admitted
that he is not made any complaint before any authority about his alleged false implication. He
also admitted that at no point he has informed the Court during his production about the false
implication. He also admitted that he is not aware from whom he was procuring the socks for
selling. He even admitted that he has not raised alarm despite Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar &
Ors.CC No.301845/16 16 of 20 presence of passersby. He even identified his signatures on the
seizure memo as well as arrest memo. The non marking of the case property is not fatal as the
complainant has complied with the statutory requirement of Section 50(4) of the Act since case
property was produced before the Court on 07.07.2010 i.e. the very next day of recovery. In
order dated 07.07.2010 it was specially mentioned that case property produced in sealed pulanda
having six seals intact of VKT and fresh seal of the Hon'ble Court was put and said order has
been proved as Ex. PW-5/A. The accused have not been able to show any falsity in the testimony
of PW-5. PW-5 very categorically stated that the case property is of uncured leopard skin which
has been measured as 101x35 cm. The order dated 07.07.2010 also includes As such, this court
does not find anything on record which shows that there has been any manipulation of the case
property.27

28. At this stage it would be relevant to go through section 57 of the Act which says:

Presumption to be made in certain cases.____ Where, in any prosecution for an

offence against this Act, it is established that a person is in possession, custody or
control of any captive animal, animal article, meat, (trophy, uncured trophy,
specified plant, or part of derivative thereof} it shall be presumed, until the contrary
is proved, the burden of proving which shall lie on the accused, that such person is
in unlawful possession, custody or control of such captive animal, animal article,
meat (trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part of derivative thereof}.

Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.CC No.301845/16 17 of 20

27 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

22
 Environmental law

29. Hence, as per section 57 of the Act, prosecution has to prove that the accused was found in
possession/custody or control of any part or deliberately of any animal and until the contrary is
proved, which is to be proved by the accused, custody of such person will be treated to be
unlawful custody. The accused has not lead any evidence to rebut the presumption of Section 57
of the Act. From the cross examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused has failed to bring
anything on record to rebut the said presumption. Complainant has also complied with the
Section 50(4) of the Act wherein any person detained or things seized shall forthwith be taken
before a Magistrate. Accused Ashok Kumar and Naresh have not led any defence evidence to
rebut the said presumption. Accused Nand Kumar had led defence evidence but in respect to the
scientific analysis of the case property. Even he has not led any evidence to rebut the said
presumption.

30. As far as contradictions pointed out in the testimony of complainant witnesses are concerned,
minor discrepancies are bound to occur due to lapse of time. However, these discrepancies does
not throw away the case of the prosecution as the prosecution witnesses remained consistent
regarding the recovery of baby leopard skin from the possession of accused persons. Further no
ground shown for the false implication of the accused. Reliance can be placed upon in case titled
as " Jugendra Singh vs State of U.P., reported in II (2012) CCR 431 (SC)=IV (2012) SLT 244=II
(2012) DLT (Crl.) 794 (SC)= AIR 2012 SC 2254, held as under:-28

"The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue
importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the
basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The Wild Life Vs.
Ashok Kumar & Ors. CC No.301845/16 18 of 20 discrepancies which are due
to normal efforts of perception or observation should not be given
importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The
Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases
must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version
given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such
witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes

28 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

23
 Environmental law

into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution

story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version
perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The Courts,
however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if
they are otherwise trustworthy."29

31. The argument of Ld. counsel that there are material deviations with respect to compliances of
Punjab Police Rules is humbly rejected as it is held in Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Anr.
: AIR 2016 SC 5160 by Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to lapses in investigation that if the
evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in
the prosecution version. Further, it needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot
take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or
insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be
taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The Apex Court, relying upon Wild Life
Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.CC No.301845/16 19 of 20 C. Muniappan & Ors. V. State of
Tamilnadu : AIR 2010 SC 3718 further laid down the there may be highly defective
investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO
and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The Law on this issue
is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal.
Further, where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions
etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the Court
to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said
evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected
the object of finding out the truth. The lapses with respect to non joining of independent
witnesses or failure in conducting a personal search of the raiding team are not fatal to the case
of the complainant.

32. Hence, in view of the above findings, I am of the considered opinion that complainant has
successfully proven that accused Ashok Kumar, Nand Kumar and Naresh were found in
possession and were dealing of baby leopard skin for the purpose of trade. The leopard skin is

29 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

24
 Environmental law

specified in schedule I of the Act and thus the accused persons have contravened the provisions
of Section 49 and 49(B) of the Act. Accordingly, all three accused persons are held guilty and
are convicted for the offence U/s 49 and 49(B) punishable U/s 51 of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972. Case property if any, be confiscated to the State U/s 39 of Wildlife (Protection) Act.

Announced in open court on 11th of April, 2018. (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT)

ACMM(Special Acts) : CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI WildLife Vs. Ashok
Kumar & Ors. CC No.301845/16 20 of 2030

Bibliography

1. Sayan S. Das Environmental Law in India

2. Environmental Law -H. D. Pithawalla C. Jamnadas & Co
3. indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620
4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_Protection_Act,_1972
5. www.slideshare.net/Rvinodkumar2/indian-wildlife-protection-act-1972-53650190

30 indiankanoon.org/doc/82930620

25