Haryana: Appeal filed by convicts allowed in black buck poaching case

Appeal filed by six convicts against the verdict of Special Environment Court in connection with killing of black buck and hares was allowed by Sessions court, Faridabad. The case was related to former Indian cricket captain (case against him was abated by lower court during the trial stage) and reported from Jhajjar district of Haryana on June 2005. 

Rhino horn smuggling: Five accused sentenced to five years imprisonment

In October 2016 Jaldapara Wildlife officials, West Bengal were seized a rhino horn, tooth and hooves and arrested five persons, in addition to the wildlife goods forest officials also seized an AK-47 rifle with magazine and 46 nos. of live cartridges. After the trial a local court in Alipurduar district were convicted all five accused and sentenced them to five years imprisonment and ₹20,000 fine each.

During the sentencing court observed that “As a Court of Law, we should be careful that actions taken by the Courts send message to the society that no one is above law and anyone, intending to break law would be punished adequately. The offence involved in this case is very serious in nature and the Act provides for punishment for a term not less that three years but which may extend to seven years and for fine not less that ten thousand rupees. In such a case, adopting any lenient view would send message to the wrongdoers to feel encouraged in destroying and killing wildlife animals rendering them further extinct and the purpose of the Act of 1972 would be frustrated.”

Sansar Chand's brother discharged in big wildlife seizure case

In January 2005 Delhi police raided a warehouse and seized 2 tiger skins, bones, paws, 38 leopard skins, 1 snow leopard skin, 42 otter skins etc. and a case was filed against Sansar Chand, his family members and his employees. During the trial Sansar's brother Narain and one of the co-accused were discharged by court. “None of the recovery witnesses have stated any incriminating evidence against accused no. 6 Narain and accused no. 7 Preetam. Hence, there are not sufficient material to frame charge against the accused no. 6 Narain and accused no. 7 Preetam. Both stands discharged for the offences alleged against them.”

Madhya Pradesh: Case against forest officials in black buck poaching case

Madhya Pradesh forest department’s special task force (STF wildlife crime) has booked four forest department employees for letting off four of the seven alleged poachers roam scot free in a black buck poaching case. “During our investigation we found serious dereliction of duty, misuse of official position, taking money from the suspected poachers, changing the seized weapon of one of the accused with another weapon, producing only three people in the court instead of seven they had caught initially”, the official said.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/blackbuck-poaching-case-mp-s-stf-wildlife-crime-books-four-forest-officials/story-hd0fajDi3ZWdZ5wzlCcGsM.html

Karnataka: Accused were acquitted in elephant electrocution cases

Recently a Sessions court in Mysuru were acquitted the accused in two separate elephant electrocution cases registered in Mysuru district, in both cases police was the complainant. Offence was reported on June 2012 and January 2016 respectively.

Court found out that in both cases complainant were failed to collect material evidence to show that the accused was the owner of the land where the elephants were found dead due to electrocution. In addition to that in both cases with regard to the offence punishable under Section 9 r/w Section 51 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is concerned, the I.O. has not obtained the proper sanction from the concerned Authority under Section 55 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Therefore, the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 9 r/w Section 51 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is not sustainable under Law.

Shahtoosh shawl traders sentenced to three years imprisonment

In February 2003, CBI team had raided a shop in Hotel Le-Meridien in Delhi and seized 26 shahtoosh shawls, 2 persons were arrested. After the trial court had convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo SI for three years and are also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence u/s 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act for the contravention of Section 49 and 49B(1) of the Act.

Seizure of 8 leopard skins, accused acquitted in Delhi

In February 2009 Crime Branch of Delhi police seized 5 leopard skins in Delhi and arrested two persons. On further investigations with wildlife officials, 3 more leopard skins and traps were seized from Himachal Pradesh. After the trial a court in Delhi had acquitted both the accused.

In one of the observation court noted that “More so, as per Manual on Wildlife Species in Trade, 1^st Edition prepared by Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India, there are procedural guidelines for identifying the wildlife species. Its Preface specifically provides that the agencies may note that similar and mere resemblance cannot be taken as confirmatory. Additional test like morphological, microscopic analytical and forensic tests may have to be undertaken for legal action. It is further provided in the Manual that for identifying the skin of leopard, the hair signature pattern of leopard can be identified if it is having the following pattern: color cremish brown, culticular scale pattern imbricate, medulla-Continuous, Medullary Index-0.657. Admittedly, in the present case no such test were conducted by the complainant and the above mentioned characteristics were also not proved being found on the recovered skins. The expertise of PW3 in identifying the recovered skins has not come on record. It is common knowledge that nowadays with the advent of new technologies fake skins can be prepared with the help of synthetic fibers which might be having same feel and texture as of a natural skin. In the absence of chemical analysis/forensic examination of the skins, it cannot be said with certainty that the recovered skins were of leopard. The complainant has failed to prove the same.”