SANSAR CHANDversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

                   [2010] 12 S.C.R. 583


                      SANSAR CHAND                                   A
                                v.
                   STATE OF RAJASTHAN
             (Criminal Appeal No. 2024 of 2010)
                     OCTOBER 20, 2010
                                                                     B
      [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

      Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 - /l/ega/ trade in wildlife by
accused - Accused into this illegal trade for past 30 years -
Accused prosecuted and convicted by various courts - In the          C
instant case, disclosure statement by one that he was carrying
leopard skins which were to be handed over to accused -
Conviction of accused on basis thereof, by courts below - On
appeal, held: Extra-judicial confession corroborated by other
material on record establishing the guilt ofacc;used - Large         o
amount of oral and documentary evidence - Thu$, accused
rightly held guilty beyond reasonable doubt - Evidence.
  .                                            .
   · Wildlife - Poaching of wildlife - Resulting in extinction
of wild animals like tiger, leopard and bison - Direction to the     E.
Government and its agencies to take steps to preserye wildlife
of the country - Stringent action against those indulging in
such crimes.

     The appellant is into the illegal trade in wild life since
the year 1974 when he was barely 16 years. The appellant             F
and his gangs have established an interlinking smuggling
network. He has been arrested fo~ 680 skins including
tigers, leopards and others.

    In the instant case, 'B' was traveling in a train with a         G
carton containing leopard's skin. The police arrested him.
During investigation, 'B' made a disclosure statement to
the SHO that the said two leopard skins were to be
handed over to the appellant. The appellant was charge
                              583                                    H
     584      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 12 S.C.R.


 A sheeted for the offence and was convicted by the courts
   below. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeal.

           Dismissing the appeal, the Court

         HELD: 1.1 The instant case reveals how avaricious
 B   and rapacious persons have by organized crime
     destroyed large parts of the wild life of India and brought
     many animals e.g. tigers, leopards, bison, etc. almost to
     the brink of extinction, thereby seriously jeopardizing
     and destroying the ecological chain and ecological
 c   balance in the environment. [Para 3] [587-D-E]

          1.2 India, at one time, had une of the richest and most
    varied fauna in the world. However, over the last several
    decades there has been rapid decline of India's wild
  D animals    and birds which is a cause of grave concern.
    Some wild animals and birds have already become
    e><tinct e.g. the cheetah and others are. on the brink of
    extinction. Areas which were once teeming with wild life
    tiave become devoid of it, and many sanctuaries and
    parks are empty or almost empty of animals and birds.
  E
    The Sariska Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan and the Panna
    Tiger Reserve in Madhya Pradesh today have no tigers.
     The wild life in India has already been considerably
    destroyed. At one time there were hundreds of thousands
    of tigers, leopards and other wild animals, but today there
  F are only about 1400 tigers left, according to the Wildlife
•   Institute. [Paras 5 and 13] [587-G-H] [588-A] [589-G]

        1.3 There is virtually no market for the skins or bones
   of tigers and leopards within India. The evidence
 G available points out that tigers and leopards, poached in
   the Indian wilderness, are then smuggled across the
   border to meet the demand for their products in
   neighbouring countries such as China. When dealing
   with tiger and leopard poachers and traders, it is,
 H
    SANSAR CHAND v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                585


therefore, important to bear in mind that one is dealing     A
with trans-national organized crime. The accused in these
cases represents a link in a larger criminal network that
stretch·es across borders. This network starts with a
poacher who in most cases is a poor tribal and a skilled
hunter. Poachers kill tigers and leopards so as to supply    B
the orders placed by a trader in a larger city centre such
as Delhi. These traders are very wealthy and influential
men. [Para 16] [590-F-H] [591-A]
    2.1 The persons like the appellant are the head of a .
gang of criminals who do illegal trade in wildlife. They C
themselves do not do poaching, but they hire persons to
do the actual work of poaching. Thus, a person like the
appellant (leader of the gang) remains behind the scene,
and for this reasons it is not always possible and easy
to get direct evidence against him. [Paras 23 and 31] [593- D
H] [594-A] [595-F]
      2.2 The appellant has been doing the said illegal.
trade for more than 30 years. He is habitual of doing this·
illegal business of trade in skins and parts of panthers
and tigers. In 1974, he committed his first crime when he E
was barely 16 years of age and the conviction was upheld
by this Court. A large number of cases are pending
against him in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. Taking
all these materials into account there is no doubt that the
appellant is guilty of the offence charged. [Para 32] [595- F
G-H] [596-A]
    3.1 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   G
corroborated by some other material. [Para 33] [596-B]
    Thimma vs. The State of Mysore AIR 1971 SC 1871;
Mulk Raj vs. The State of UP. AIR 1959 SC 902; Sivakumar
vs. State by Inspector of Police AIR 2006 SC 563; Shiva
Karam Payaswami Tewar vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009      H
    586      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A SC 1692; Mohd. Azad vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2009 SC
  1307 - relied on.

       3.2 In the instant case, the extra-judicial confession
  by 'B' was referred to in the judgments of the Magistrate
  and the Special Judge, and it has been corroborated by
8
  the other material on record. The confession was
  voluntary and was not the result of inducement, threat or
  promise as contemplated by Section 24 of the Evidence
  Act. The Magistrate and the Special Judge have
C discussed in great detail the prosecution evidence, oral
  as well as documentary and have found the appellant
  guilty. Thus, the appellant has rightly been held guilty
  beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court upheld the
  order and there is no reason to take a different view.
  [Paras 30 and 34) [595-E)
D
      4. The Central and State Governments and their
  agencies are requested to make all efforts to preserve the
  wild life of the country and take stringent actions again.st
  those who are violating the provisions of the Wildlife
E (Protection) Act, as this is necessary for maintaining the
  ecological balance in our country. [Para 35) [596-F-G]

                        Case Law Reference:
          AIR 1971 SC 1871     Relied on.           Para 33
F
          AIR 1959 SC 902       Relied on.          Para 33
          AIR 2006 SC 563       Relied on.          Para 33
          AIR 2009 SC 1692      Relied on.          Para 33
G         AIR 2009 SC 1307      Relied on.          Para 33
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 2024 of 2010.


H
     SANSAR CHAND v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                      587


    From the Judgment & Order dated 10.12.2008 of the High           A
Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition
No. 1385 of 2008.

    Sidharth Luthra, Pramod Kr. Dubey, Gaurav Kejriwal, Kuna!
Sood, Ashish Dixit, Yashpreet Singh, lrshad Ahmad, Anitha            B
Shenoy, Rohit Sharma, Saurabh Sharma, B.S. Gautham, Ritwik
Dutta for the appearing parties.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. Leave granted.                          c
     2. Shera was the symbol of the recent Commonwealth
Games, but ironically Shera has been almost exterminated in
our country. The Sher Khan of Rudyard Kipling's 'Jungle Book',
which once abounded in India, is rarely to be seen today.
                                                                     D
      3. This case reveals how avaricious and rapacious
persoos have by organized crime destroyed large parts of tpe
wild life of India and brought many animals e.g. tigers, leopards,
bison, etc. almost to the brink of extinction, thereby seriously
jeopardizing and destroying the ecological chain and                 E
ecological balance in our environment.

    4. The appellant herein has been convicted under the
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 by all the three courts below and
now he is in appeal before us.
                                                                     F
      5. Before dealing with the facts of this case, we would like
to comment upon the background. India, at one time, had one
of the richest and most varied fauna in the world. However, over
the last several decades there has been rapid decline of India's
wild animals and birds which is a cause of grave concern.            G
Some wild animals and birds have already become extinct e.g.
the cheetah and others are on the brink of extinction. Areas
which were once teeming with wild life have become devoid
of it, and many sanctuaries and parks are empty or almost
                                                                     H
    588       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A   empty of animals & birds. Thus, the Sariska Tiger Reserve in
    Rajasthan and the Panna Tiger Reserve in Madhya Pradesh
    today have no tigers.

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

          7. Article 48A of the Constitution states as follows :

          "48A. Protection and improvement of environment and
c         safeguarding of forest and wild life. - The State shall
          endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to
          safeguard the forests and wild life of the country".

         8. Article 51A (g) of the Constitution states that it is the
    duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural
D   environment including the wild life.

         9. The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 was enacted for this
    constitutional purpose. Chapter Ill of the said Act prohibits
    hunting of wild animals except in certain limited circumstances.
E   Chapter 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. Chapter V & VA prohibits trade or
    commerce of wild animals, animal articles or trophies. Chapter
F   VI makes violation of the provisions of the Act a criminal
    offence. By the Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 the
    punishment has been increased vide Section 51 as amended,
    and the property d13rived from illegal hunting and trade is liable
    to forfeiture vide Chapter VIA.
G        10. Before dealing with the facts of this case, we may
    consider why preservation of wild life is important for human
    society.

          11. Preservation of wild life is important for maintaining the
H
    SANSAR CHAND v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                         589
           [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
ecological balance in the environment and sustaining the              A
ecological chain. It must be understood that there is inter-linking
in nature. To give an example, snakes eat frogs, frogs eat
insects and insects eat other insects and vegetation. If we kill
all the snakes, the result will be that number of frogs will
increase and this will result in the frogs eating more of the         B
insects and when more insects are eaten, then the insects
which are the prey of other insects will increase in number to a
disproportionate extent, or the vegetation will increase to a
disproportionate 'extent. This will upset the delicate ecological
balance in nature. If we kill the frogs the insects will increase     c
and this will require more insecticides. Use of much insecticide
may create health problems. To give another example,
destruction of dholes (wild dogs) in Bhutan was intended to
protect livestock, but this led to greater number of wild boar
and to resultant crop devastation causing several cases of            D
abandonment by humans of agricultural fields. Destruction of
carnivorous .animals will result in increase of herbivorous.
animals, and this can result in serious loss of agricultural crops
and other vegetation.

     12. It must be realized that our scientific understanding of     E
nature, and in particular of the ecological chain and the linkages
therein is still very primitive, incomplete and fragmentary.
Hence, it is all the more important today that we preserve the
ecological balance because disturbing it may cause serious
repercussions of which we may have no idea today.                     F

     13. As already stated above, the wild life in India has
already been considerably destroyed. At one time there were
hundreds of thousands of tigers, leopards and other wild
animals, but today there are only about 1400 tigers left,             G
according to the Wildlife Institute.

     14. 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          H
    590     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A greater decimation. Poaching of tigers for traditional Chinese
  medicine industry has been going on in India for several
  decades. Tigers and leopards are poached for their skins,
  bones and other constituent parts as these fetch high prices in
  countries such as China, where they are valued as symbols of
B power (aphrodisiacs) and ingredients of dubious traditional
  medicines. 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
c the organized gangs who have international connection in
  foreign countries. Poaching of wild life is an organized
  international illegal activity which generates massive amount of
  money for the criminals.

       15. Interpol says that trade in illegal wild life products is
D worth about US$ 20 billion a year, and India is now a major
  source market for this trade. Most of the demand for wildlife
  products .comes from outside the country. While ~t ·one time
  there were hundreds of thousands of tigers in India, today
  according to the survey made by the Wildlife Institute of India
E (an autonomous body under the Ministry of Environment and
  Forests), there were only 1411 tigers left in India in 2008.
  There are no rnliable estimates of leopards as no proper
  census has been carried out, but the rough estimates show that
  the leopard too is a critically endangered species.
F
        16. There is virtually no market for the skins or bones of
  tigers and leopards within India. The evidence available points
  out that tigers and leopards, poached in the Indian wilderness,
  are then smuggled across the border to meet the demand for
G their products in neighbouring countries such as China. 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. This network starts with a poacher who in
H
     SANSAR CHAND v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                        591
            [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]
most cases is a poor tribal and a skilled hunter. Poachers kill        A
tigers and leopards so as to supply the orders placed by a
trader in a larger city centre such as Delhi. These traders are
very wealthy and influential men. Once the goods reach the
trader, he then arranges for them to be smuggled across the
border to his counterpart in another country and so on till it         B
reaches the end consumer. It is impossible for such a network
to sustain itself without large profits and intelligent management.

      17. Under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, trading in
tiger, leopard and other animal skins and parts is a serious           C
offence. Apart from that, 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). However, despite these National
and International laws many species of wildlife e.g. tigers,
leopards, bison etc. are under threat of extinction, mainly due        D
to the poaching organized by international criminal traders and
destruction of the habitats. , ·

      18. Sansar Chand, the appellant before us has a long
history of such criminal activities, starting with a 1974 arrest for   E
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's borders,
particularly to China. It is alleged that the appellant and his        F
gang are accusei:! in 57 wildlife cases between 1974 and 2005.

      19. Sansar Chand the appellant herein has a long history
of involvement with wildlife crime. A brief account of the same
is given below:
                                                                       G
     (i) In a seizure dated 11.09.1974 having criminal case No.
     20/3 Sansar was held guilty by the Court of Shri H.P.
     Sharma ACMM, Delhi on 1.8.1981 and sentenced on
     3.8.1981 to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six
     months. This Court vide it's judgment dated 13.5.1994             H
    592       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A         ordered the release of Sansar Chand on the ground that
          he was a juvenile on the date of the offence and his
          sentence be considered to have undergone.

          (ii) In another seizure dated 20.11.197 4 he was held guilty
          and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-.
B
          (iii) The third conviction of Sansar Chand was by the
          Special Railways Court vide it's order dated 20.4.2004
          which was pleased to award Sansar Chand rigorous
          imprisonment for 5 years. The said judgment has been
c         subsequently affirmed by the Sessions Court on
          19.10.2006 and the High Court of Rajasthan vide it's order
          dated 10.12.2008 against which Sansar Chand has
          preferred this special leave petition.

D         (iv) In addition to the above there are other cases pending
          against the appellant which provide details of his pending
          cases in various Courts and which were admitted by him
          in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and which are
          Ex. P-46 and P-47. · These exhibits show the extent of
          involvement of Sansar Chand in wildlife crime.
E
          (v) In order to highlight the extent of the organized nature
          of wildlife crimes being committed by the appellant, it is
          important to mention here that it is not just Sansar Chand,
          but other members of his family and associations who are
F         also involved in the illegal trade in wildlife. It is alleged
          that the appellant's younger brother Narayan Chand is
          mentioned in FIR No. 82/2005, Kamla Market Police
          Station, New Delhi, involving the seizure of, inter a/ia, 2
          tiger skins, 38 leopard skins and 1 snow leopard skin and
G         has been named as an accused in the complaint filed
          under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in
          this case. Narayan Chand is also an accused in Court
          Case No. 1145/2009 being tried before the Additional
          Chief Judicial Magaistrate, Haldwani, arising from
H         Preliminary Offence Report No. 13/Fatehpur/2008-2009,
    SANSAR CHAND v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                     593
           [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
    involving the seizure of 1 tiger skin and a tiger skeleton.   A
    Sansar Chand's wife Rani and son Akash are accused in
    the case arising from FIR No. 362/2004, Manak Chowk
    Police Station, Jaipur, involving the seizure of leopard
    paws and claws. CBI in the year 2005 invoked MCOCA
    against Sansar Chand and his family members and               B
    associates which case is pending trial in a Delhi Court.

      20. The present case is only one of the ca'Ses in which the
appellant has been accused. The facts of the case have been
set out in detail in the judgment of the High Court and hence C
we are not repeating the same here. Briefly stated, on January
5, 2003 the police arrested one Balwan who was traveling in a
train with a carton containing leopard's skin. During
investigation the said Balwan on January 7, 2003 made a
disclosure statement to the SHO, GRP Bhilwara that the two
leopard skins were to be handed over to Sansar Chand at-- D
Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The appellant was charge sheeted and
afte·r trial he was convicted by the Additio_nal Chief Judicial
Magistrate (Railways), Ajmer, Rajasthan by his judgment dated
29.4.2004. The appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed
by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities} Cases, E
Ajmer vide his judgment dated 19.8.2006. Thereafter the
appellant filed a Revision Petition, which was dismissed by the
Rajasthan High Court by the impugned judgment dated
10.12.2008. Hence, this appeal.
                                                                  F
      21. Thus, all the courts below have found the appellant
guilty of the offences charged.

     22. Learned cou:-isel for the appellant submitted that the
prosecution case is solely based on the extra judicial
confession made by co-accused Balwan vide Ex.P-33. We do          G
not agree. Apart from the extra judicial confession of Balwan
there is a lot of other corroborative material on record which
establishes the appellant's guilt.

    23. It must be mentioned that persons like the appellant      H
    594     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A 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
B him.

       24. In the courts below the prosecution filed a list of
  pending cases against Sansar Chand, in some of which he has
  been found guilty and punished. The appellant has been
C prosecuted by the Wildlife Department in various courts as
  mentioned in the letter of the Deputy Inspector General of
  Police, CBI, New Delhi to the Inspector General of Police,
  Jaipur dated October 20, 2004.

       25. Ex.P-33 which contains the confession of the appellant,
D was written by PW-11 Arvind Kumar on the instructions given
  by the accused Balwan while in custody. Prior to Ex.P-33,
  Balwan has also disclosed the name of the appellant vide Ex.P-
  6 on January 6, 2003.

E        26. In our opinion, Ex.P-33 supported by the evidence of
    Arvind PW 11 and Ex.P-6 cannot be treated to be concocted
    documents which cannot be relied upon. As per the disclosure
    statement of Balwan the other co-accused persons were also
    arrested and articles used for killing and removing skins from
F   the bodies of leopards were also recovered.

       27. The accused Balwan was released on bail on
  18.01.2003, and thereafter he sent the written confession
  Exh.P-33 on 23.01.2003 during judicial custody at Central Jail,
  Ajmer. In our opinion it cannot be held that the accused Balwan
G was under any pressure of the police. The said letter Ex.P-33
  dictated by Balwan to Arvind Kumar was directly sent from the
  Central Jail, Ajmer to the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court,
  Ajmer. We are of the opinion that the letter P-33 was not
  fabricated or procured by pressure. The accused Balwan has
H clearly stated in Exh.P-33that he was paid Rs.5000/- and
     SANSAR CHAND v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                       595
            [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
Rs.10000/- by the appellant. The appellant has several houses         A
in Delhi, purchased in his name and in the name of his wife. It
appears that these houses were purchased with the help of
gains made out of his illegal activities stated above.

     28. Pw-11 Arvind Kumar has stated in his deposition
                                                                      B
before the Court that he wrote the letter Ex.P-33 at the instance
of the accused Balwan. The thumb impression of the accused
Balwan is on that letter.

    29. At the instance of the appellant one Bhua Gameti was
questioned who stated that the panther's skin had been taken C
by various persons e.g. Khima, Nawa, Kheta Ram, Mohan and
Chuna, who were also arrested. At their pointing out the
equipment used for hunting the leopard and poaching it were
seized. Panther's nails were also recovered from accused ·
Bhura and the guns, cartridges, and knives for removing the D
skins of panthers were recovered from the accused.

     30. There is a large amount of oral and documentary
evidence on record which has been discussed in great detail
by the learned Magistrate and the learned Special Judge and
                                                                      E
hence we are not repeating the same here. Thus the appellant
has rightly been held guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

      31. As already stated above, in such cases it is not easy
to get direct evidence, particularly against the leader of the gang
(like the appellant here~n).                                          F

      32. The appellant, Sansar Chand has been doing this
illegal trade for more than 30 years. He is habitual of doing
this illegal business of trade in skins and parts of panthers and
tigers. He has, as far back as in 1974, committed his first crime     G
when he was barely 16 years of age and the conviction was
upheld by the Supreme Court in Criminal Case No. 15 of
2001. A large number of cases are pending against him in
Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. Taking all these materials
                                                                      H
    596      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A   into account there is no doubt that the appellant is guilty of the
    offence charged.

       33. 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
8
  by some other material vide Thimma vs. The State of Mysore
  - AIR 1971 SC 1871, Mulk Raj vs. The State of UP. - AIR
  1959 SC 902, Sivakumar vs. State by Inspector of Police -
  AIR 206 SC 563 (para 41 & 42), Shiva Karam Payaswami
C Tewar vs. State of Maharashtra - AIR 2009 SC 1692, Mohd.
  Azad vs. State of West Bengal - AIR 2009 SC 1307. In the
  present case, the extra judicial confession by Balwan has been
  referred to in the judgments of the learned Magistrate and the
  Special Judge, and it has been corroborated by the other
  material on record. We are satisfied that the confession was
D voluntary and was not the result of inducement, threat or
  promise as contemplated by Section 24 of the Evidence Act.

          34. The learned Magistrate and the Special Judge have
    discussed in great detail the prosecution evidence, oral as well
E   as documentary and have found the appellant guilty. The High
    Court has affirmed that verdict and we see no reason to take
    a different view. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.

         35. Before we part with this case, we would like to request
    the Central and State Governments and their agencies to make
F   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.

G N.J.                                           Appeal dismissed.