Sansar Chand v State of Rajasthan (2010)

This is a criminal appeal against conviction under the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, and it is the best case in this course for two purposes:

1. It gives the Supreme Court's account of why the 1972 Act exists and what it does, chapter by chapter — a ready-made framework for any question on the scheme of the Act, and the backbone of chapter 12.
2. It explains, with unusual frankness, why the leaders of poaching networks are so hard to convict, and how the law of extra-judicial confession applies in that setting.

"India, at one time, had one of the richest and most varied fauna in the world." But over recent decades there has been "rapid decline of India's wild animals and birds which is a cause of grave concern". "Some wild animals and birds have already become extinct e.g. the cheetah and others are on the brink of extinction." Areas once teeming with wildlife are empty: "the Sariska Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan and the Panna Tiger Reserve in Madhya Pradesh today have no tigers".

"One of the main causes for this depredation of the wild life is organized poaching which yields enormous profits by exports to China and other countries."

The figures the Court relied on:

• Once there were hundreds of thousands of tigers in India; according to the survey of the Wildlife Institute of India, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, "there were only 1411 tigers left in India in 2008".
• There are no reliable estimates of leopards, no proper census having been carried out, "but the rough estimates show that the leopard too is a critically endangered species".
• "Interpol says that trade in illegal wild life products is worth about US$ 20 billion a year, and India is now a major source market for this trade."

The change in diagnosis is a point worth carrying: "Until recently habitat loss was thought to be the largest threat to the future of tigers, leopards etc. However, it has now been established that illegal trade and commerce in skins and other body parts of tigers, leopards etc. has done even much" greater decimation.

Art. 48-A was quoted in full — "The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country" — and Art. 51-A(g) as the citizen's corresponding duty. Then: "The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 was enacted for this constitutional purpose."

The Court's chapter-by-chapter summary is the most useful paragraph in the judgment for revision:

| Chapter | What it does | |---|---| | III | "prohibits hunting of wild animals except in certain limited circumstances" | | IV | "enables the State Government to declare any area as a sanctuary or national park, and destruction or removal of animals from those areas is prohibited except under very limited circumstances" | | V and V-A | "prohibits trade or commerce of wild animals, animal articles or trophies" | | VI | "makes violation of the provisions of the Act a criminal offence" | | VI-A, with s. 51 as amended in 2002 | the punishment "has been increased", and "the property derived from illegal hunting and trade is liable to forfeiture" |

This passage is the reason the case is worth reading in full, and it explains the structure of the offence:

"Tigers and leopards are poached for their skins, bones and other constituent parts as these fetch high prices in countries such as China". "This illegal trade is organized and widespread and is in the hands of ruthless sophisticated operators, some of whom have top level patronage. The actual poachers are paid only a pittance, while huge profits are made by the leaders of the organized gangs who have international connection in foreign countries."

"There is virtually no market for the skins or bones of tigers and leopards within India." So "When dealing with tiger and leopard poachers and traders, it is therefore important to bear in mind that one is dealing with trans-national organized crime. The accused in these cases represents a link in a larger criminal network that stretches across borders." The network "starts with a poacher who in most cases is a poor tribal and a skilled hunter", who kills "so as to supply the orders placed by a trader in a larger city centre such as Delhi", and "These traders are very wealthy and influential men."

India is "a signatory to both the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (CTOC)", yet "despite these National and International laws many species of wildlife e.g. tigers, leopards, bison etc. are under threat of extinction".

The appellant Sansar Chand had "a long history of such criminal activities, starting with a 1974 arrest for 680 skins including tigers, leopards and others". "It is alleged that the appellant and his gang are accused in 57 wildlife cases between 1974 and 2005."

In the present case, on 5 January 2003 the police arrested one Balwan, travelling in a train "with a carton containing leopard's skin". On 7 January 2003 Balwan made a disclosure statement to the SHO, GRP Bhilwara, "that the two leopard skins were to be handed over to Sansar Chand at Sadar Bazar, Delhi".

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Ajmer on 29 April 2004; his appeal was dismissed by the Special Judge on 19 August 2006; his revision was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court on 10 December 2008.

The appellant argued that "the prosecution case is solely based on the extra judicial confession made by co-accused Balwan".

The Court's answer had three parts.

First, the structural difficulty. "persons like the appellant are the head of a gang of criminals who do illegal trade in wildlife. They themselves do not do poaching, but they hire persons to do the actual work of poaching. Thus a person like the appellant herein remains behind the scene, and for this reasons it is not always possible to get direct evidence against him."

Second, the confession was not the only evidence. Balwan had named the appellant in an earlier document of 6 January 2003 as well; on his disclosure the other co-accused were arrested and "articles used for killing and removing skins from the bodies of leopards were also recovered". At the appellant's instance one Bhua Gameti was questioned; further accused were arrested; "Panther's nails were also recovered", along with "the guns, cartridges, and knives for removing the skins of panthers". The confession recorded that Balwan "was paid Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 10000/- by the appellant", and the appellant had "several houses in Delhi, purchased in his name and in the name of his wife", which "were purchased with the help of gains made out of his illegal activities".

Third, the confession was voluntary. Balwan was released on bail on 18 January 2003 and sent the written confession on 23 January 2003 from judicial custody; the letter "was directly sent from the Central Jail, Ajmer to the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ajmer", and the Court held "that the letter P-33 was not fabricated or procured by pressure".

The rule stated:

"There is no absolute rule that an extra judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material"

— the Court citing Thimma v The State of Mysore, Mulk Raj v The State of U.P., Sivakumar v State by Inspector of Police, Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewar v State of Maharashtra and Mohd. Azad v State of West Bengal. Here the confession "has been corroborated by the other material on record", and the Court was satisfied "that the confession was voluntary and was not the result of inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by Section 24 of the Evidence Act".

The appeal was dismissed. The concurrent findings of the Magistrate, the Special Judge and the High Court were upheld — "the appellant has rightly been held guilty beyond reasonable doubt".

"Before we part with this case, we would like to request the Central and State Governments and their agencies to make all efforts to preserve the wild life of the country and take stringent actions against those who are violating the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, as this is necessary for maintaining the ecological balance in our country."

1. The Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 gives effect to Arts. 48-A and 51-A(g); its structure is prohibition of hunting (Ch. III), protected areas (Ch. IV), prohibition of trade (Chs. V and V-A), offences (Ch. VI) and forfeiture of property derived from illegal hunting and trade (Ch. VI-A), with enhanced punishment under s. 51 since 2002.
2. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession cannot found a conviction; ordinarily it must be corroborated, and it must be voluntary within s. 24 of the Evidence Act.
3. In organised wildlife crime the leader remains behind the scene, so direct evidence is often unavailable, and the courts will convict on corroborated circumstantial and confessional material.