In a significant ruling underscoring the judiciary's commitment to wildlife protection, the Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of two individuals, Makbool Ahmed and Rajesh, involved in the illegal trade of tiger skin and wild animal products. While affirming their guilt, the Apex Court, however, modified the quantum of sentence, reducing it from six years of rigorous imprisonment to three years of simple imprisonment, coupled with an enhanced fine.

The judgment, addressed appeals challenging the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court's decision, which had previously upheld their conviction by the Sessions Court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM).

The Case: A Sting Operation and Seizure

The case dates back to March 2001, when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), acting on secret intelligence, intercepted Makbool Ahmed (Accused No. 1) and Rajesh (Accused No. 2) in Nagpur, Maharashtra. The information indicated their involvement in the illicit trade of tiger skin and other wildlife articles.

On March 21, 2001, a CBI team, led by Inspector A. K. Bassi (PW4), with the assistance of independent witnesses, apprehended the duo at a petrol pump. During the search of their Maruti Esteem car, authorities recovered a substantial quantity of illegal items: a tiger skin, antler horns, tiger claws, teeth, tiger bones, and tiger skulls. The seized items were meticulously documented and sealed, leading to the arrest of the accused.

Judicial Journey: From CJM to High Court

Following the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter 'the Act'), and a thorough investigation, the CBI filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. The expert opinion from the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, confirmed that the seized materials belonged to scheduled wild animals, including tigers, panthers, leopards, hyenas, and chitals.

On April 9, 2007, the CJM found sufficient evidence to convict both accused, sentencing them to six years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. This conviction was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Court in May 2013, and further affirmed by the High Court in its revisionary jurisdiction.

Appellants' Contentions: Doubts and Discrepancies

During the Supreme Court proceedings, the appellants' counsel raised several points to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. They argued that initial information suggested four individuals were apprehended, but only two were eventually charged, raising suspicions about the CBI's account. Discrepancies in the trap procedure were also highlighted, particularly regarding the car's presence at the petrol pump before or after the raiding team's arrival.

A key contention was the alleged divergence in accounts regarding the apprehension: whether the accused were caught directly in the car or had attempted to flee. The defense argued that if they had run away, it would impact the determination of "conscious possession" of the recovered items. Furthermore, the defense questioned the CBI's failure to trace the alleged supplier ("Madhu") or the intended buyers, suggesting a shallow investigation. The two-hour time gap between the CBI receiving information about the car and the actual raid, without any buyers appearing, was also presented as a point of doubt.

Court's Analysis: Upholding Conviction, Addressing Lacunae

The Supreme Court acknowledged the "vague investigation" and "casual approach" of the CBI, particularly the failure to trace the supplier or the intended buyers. The Court noted that the investigation appeared "open-ended" and did not fully delve into all relevant aspects.

However, despite these investigative shortcomings, the Court found the core of the prosecution's case to be robust. The testimonies of independent witnesses, PW1 (Petrol Pump Manager) and PW2 (nominated by the Regional Labour Commissioner), were crucial. The Court observed that their depositions, having withstood cross-examination, unequivocally linked the recovery of the illegal wildlife products to the appellants. "From the testimonies of the witnesses, it is clear that the appellants were arrested on the spot. Further, recoveries were made from the appellants in the presence of PW1 and PW2 who were independent witnesses and unconnected with the trap team," the Court stated. Thus, the "standard of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' still holds the field," and the prosecution successfully met this standard in connecting the recovery to the accused.

Sentence Reduction: Youth and Circumstance

While affirming the convictions, the Supreme Court took a more lenient view on the sentence. The Court considered the appellants' young age at the time of the offense and the fact that "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."

Recognizing the urgent need for wildlife preservation, as articulated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Court nonetheless balanced this with the specific facts of the case. The bench concluded that a reduction in sentence was warranted.

Outcome: Modified Sentence and Fine Directive

Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the sentences awarded to the appellants under Section 51 of the Act. They are now to undergo three years' simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each. This fine must be deposited within eight weeks from the date of the judgment, with a default clause of an additional three months' incarceration for non-payment.

In a specific directive, the Court ordered that the fine amount be deposited with the Secretary, Animal Welfare Board of India, located in Faridabad, Haryana, emphasizing the purpose of wildlife welfare.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the stringent legal framework in place to combat wildlife crime in India, while also highlighting the judiciary's careful consideration of all facts and circumstances in sentencing.

Section 51, Wild Life (Protection) Act - 1972  

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972