Supreme Court Affirms Convictions in Large-Scale Wildlife Trade Case but Reduces Sentences

A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard appeals arising from SLP (Criminal) Nos. 4650-4651 of 2024 challenging the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench judgment which had dismissed criminal revision petitions and affirmed the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court on 23.05.2013. The appeals concerned alleged illegal trade and possession of tiger skin and other scheduled wild animal products recovered during a CBI trap at a petrol pump in Nagpur in March 2001.

The Court affirmed the convictions under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and related charges but modified the sentence. It held that, on the evidence, the prosecution had connected the recovery to the appellants through independent witnesses and therefore the conviction did not require interference, while noting significant lacunae in the investigation. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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. ... We are of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in connecting the recovery of the materials to the appellants. PW1 and PW2 were subjected to cross-examination, but the substratum of their testimonies has not been dislodged. Thus, the convictions do not require to be interfered with and stand affirmed.” The Court also reiterated that “the standard of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ still held the field,” and observed that “this, in our view, indicate[d] a casual approach in conducting the investigation.”

Background: Secret information reached the CBI that the appellants were involved in the illegal trade of tiger skin and wild-animal products and that a delivery was likely at M.H.S.K. Mohammad Ali Petrol Pump, Kamptee Road, Nagpur in the third week of March 2001. A CBI team conducted a trap on 21.03.2001 and, with two independent witnesses (the petrol pump manager PW1 and an officer PW2), intercepted a silver Maruti Esteem. The team alleged that Accused No.1 sat in the front (with a tiger skin on the seat) and Accused No.2 in the rear (with antler horns, claws and teeth). The car’s dicky allegedly contained gunny bags with 23 kg of tiger bones, five skulls and other wildlife articles. Recovery memos were prepared, seals were handed to an independent witness and both accused were arrested. An FIR and complaint were filed under sections of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and related provisions; expert opinion from the Wildlife Institute of India identified much of the material as belonging to scheduled species.

The trial Court convicted and sentenced each accused to six years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine; the Sessions Court and the High Court affirmed. On appeal to this Court, the appellants argued contradictions in trap narratives, that four persons were initially apprehended with two released, unexplained time gaps, failure to trace the purported supplier “Madhu,” and that investigation did not link appellants to supply or buyers—contentions urged to raise reasonable doubt or, alternatively, for sentence reduction. The CBI contended that the courts below had rightly recorded conviction and that the scale of recovery warranted maximum punishment.

The Supreme Court analysed statutory objects, emphasised conservation concerns, and noted investigative deficiencies including lack of deeper forensic inquiries and failure to trace supply chains. Despite these, the Court found independent witness testimony unimpeached and sufficient to establish recovery from the appellants’ possession. The Court therefore affirmed conviction but reduced the sentences on mitigation grounds: it substituted the sentence under Section 51 of the Act with three years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25,000 each (to be paid within eight weeks), with default imprisonment of three months. The fines were directed to be deposited with the Secretary, Animal Welfare Board of India; the Registry was directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Board. The appeals were partly allowed pro tanto. I.A. No.152418/2023 (exemption from certified copy) was allowed.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2025 (SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4650-4651 of 2024); 2025 INSC 705 Case Title: RAJESH ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA ETC. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not specified in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Counsel for Union of India/State/CBI not specified in the judgment