Document Actions
Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan
NLS/ENVIS/20/10/2010/Wildlife
Criminal Appeal under Wildlife (Protection) Act
Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan
Supreme Court of India
Decided on 20.10.2010
Hon'ble Judges: Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur, JJ.
NLS/ENVIS/20/10/2010/Wildlife
Protection/Supreme Court
The Appeal questions the sustainability of the conviction of the accused under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The appellant, Sansar Chand, had a long history of criminal activities, starting with an arrest in 1974 for 680 skins including tigers, leopards and others. In the subsequent years the appellant and his gang has established a complex, interlinking smuggling network to satisfy the demand for tiger and leopard parts and skins outside India. It was alleged that the appellant and his gang were accused in 57 wildlife cases between 1974 and 2005.
In the present case, the police arrested a person Balwan who was traveling in a train with a carton containing leopard's skin. During the investigation 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. Sansar Chand was chargesheeted and tried and convicted under the Act by all the lower courts.
The Appellant argued that the prosecution case was based only on the extra-judicial confession made by co-accused Balwan and hence, the conviction could not be sustained. The Court found that apart from the extra judicial confession there was a lot of other corroborative material on record to confirm the guilt of the Appellant. The prosecution also filed a list of pending cases against the Appellant in some of which he had been found guilty and punished. As per the disclosure statement of the relevant person, the other co-accused persons were also arrested and articles used for killing and removing skins from the bodies of leopards were also recovered from them.
The court also took note of the fact the appellant was the head of a gang of criminals who engage in illegal trade of wildlife. They themselves do not commit the poaching but hire other people. Since, the always remain behind the scenes, it is difficult to obtain direct evidence against them. The Court held that there was no absolute rule that an extra judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction. But an extra judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material.