Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Hunting of Monitor Lizard - Main Points and Insights:
Illegal Hunting and Protection Status: Monitor lizard is listed under Schedule 1 (Part 2) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, making hunting of such animals a serious wildlife crime ["SURUJ GOGOI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"]. Several cases document the illegal killing or hunting of Monitor Lizards, often involving their capture, killing, and subsequent consumption or sale ["SURUJ GOGOI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"], ["N.Sivakumar vs The Forest Ranger - Madras"], ["SRI BASAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"].
Criminal Offenses and Legal Proceedings: Many cases involve FIR registrations, arrests, and investigations where individuals are charged under Sections 9, 39, 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, for illegal possession, killing, or trade of Monitor Lizards ["SURUJ GOGOI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"], ["N.Sivakumar vs The Forest Ranger - Madras"], ["SRI BASAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"]. For example, in one case, a dead Monitor Lizard was found strangulated, and the accused was linked to its killing ["N.Sivakumar vs The Forest Ranger - Madras"].
Trade and Commercial Exploitation: Several instances involve illegal trade, such as the possession and sale of Monitor Lizard hemipenises and other body parts without licenses, which violate wildlife protection laws ["IRAPPA BANDEPPA JIRALI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"], ["AFR Chintan Joshi VS Niranjan Behera - Crimes"]. These cases highlight the commercial exploitation of Monitor Lizards, often with large quantities seized by authorities.
Consumption and Cultural Practices: There are reports of Monitor Lizard meat being cooked and consumed during gatherings, indicating illegal hunting for food purposes ["Manoj Vasantrao Jagtap VS State of Maharashtra, through Conservator of Forest Department, Amravati - Bombay"], ["PARAMASIVAM Vs FOREST OFFICER - Madras"], ["IRAPPA BANDEPPA JIRALI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"]. Such acts contribute to the destruction of protected species and are penalized under the law.
Investigation and Evidence Collection: Cases show that authorities conduct post-mortem examinations, DNA analysis, and recover dead or live animals to establish illegal capture or killing ["N.Sivakumar vs The Forest Ranger - Madras"], ["IRAPPA BANDEPPA JIRALI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"]. Confessions and physical evidence like carcasses are used to prosecute offenders.
Legal Challenges and Enforcement Issues: Some cases mention difficulties in proving hunting or trade beyond reasonable doubt, with courts emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and proper investigation ["P. Murugeshan VS Union of India - Calcutta"], ["IRAPPA BANDEPPA JIRALI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
The consistent theme across these cases is that Monitor Lizard hunting, whether for trade, consumption, or other reasons, is illegal and severely punishable under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The law classifies Monitor Lizard as a Schedule 1 species, emphasizing its protected status and the gravity of offenses related to it ["SURUJ GOGOI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"].
Enforcement efforts include arrests, seizures, and investigations, but challenges remain in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving illegal trade and consumption ["P. Murugeshan VS Union of India - Calcutta"], ["N.Sivakumar vs The Forest Ranger - Madras"].
The illegal trade of body parts such as hemipenises indicates organized exploitation, necessitating stringent monitoring and enforcement measures ["IRAPPA BANDEPPA JIRALI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"].
Public awareness and strict legal action are crucial to prevent illegal hunting, protect biodiversity, and uphold wildlife laws. The documented cases serve as a reminder of the ongoing need for vigilant enforcement and conservation efforts against illegal Monitor Lizard hunting and trade.
References:
Monitor lizards, particularly the Large Bengal Monitor Lizard (Varanus bengalensis), have long been revered and feared in Indian folklore. However, their hunting and poaching have drawn strict legal scrutiny due to their endangered status. If you're searching for cases related to hunting of monitor lizard, this post delves into the legal framework, landmark principles, and real-world court decisions under the . We'll examine protections, penalties, evidentiary standards, and procedural safeguards that typically govern such cases.
Poaching not only threatens biodiversity but also invites severe penalties. Understanding these laws can help conservationists, hunters, and the public navigate the fine line between tradition and illegality. Let's break it down.
The Large Bengal Monitor Lizard is classified as a species under the , making it highly protected. This endangered reptile plays a vital role in forest ecosystems, controlling pests and maintaining balance. Its destruction or illegal trade is viewed as gravely detrimental to ecological harmony and human survival.
Hunting Schedule I animals is generally prohibited except in exceptional cases, such as when a wild animal poses a danger to human life or is diseased beyond recovery. The Chief Wildlife Warden may permit such actions via written order. Violations under of the Act can lead to imprisonment and fines.
Courts emphasize credible evidence and strict procedural compliance for convictions. Mere seizure of meat or body parts doesn't suffice; prosecutors must prove possession or hunting . For instance, convictions can't rely solely on statements to authorities without corroboration.
Proceedings without a proper complaint or formal investigation are often quashed. Multiple FIRs may be filed for distinct incidents involving the same accused, underscoring thorough probes.
While no single case dominates headlines solely on monitor lizards, several rulings illustrate enforcement:
Illegal Trade and Seizures: In one instance, authorities seized 79 large Bengal monitor lizard penises and 503 sea fans from suspects intending to sell them. Accused No. 4 had two lizard penises in his vehicle, documented via . This highlights trafficking networks targeting protected parts.
Disciplinary Actions for Trade: A constable was in the illegal trade of Wild Water Monitor Lizard on . Despite criminal acquittal, disciplinary proceedings under (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and of the Wildlife Act resulted in forfeiture of five years' increments for grave misconduct. Acquittal in criminal court doesn't bar departmental action.
Poaching and Consumption: Suspects transported a dead Monitor Lizard in separate cars for cooking, along with liquor and utensils. Applicant No. 2 tasted the meat, confirming consumption of the protected Large Bengal Monitor Lizard.
Live Capture Incident: Petitioners were apprehended with a live Monitor Lizard (Schedule I animal) on . After confessional statements, the lizard was released into the jungle via . Convicted under , their three-year sentence was later modified to time already undergone, considering trial delays and custody period.
Pretextual Hunting in Crime: In a murder case, accused lured the victim to a forest on the pretext of hunting Monitor Lizard (cLk;g), leading to a conspiracy. Though acquitted due to eyewitness discrepancies, it shows cultural contexts of lizard hunting. [
These cases demonstrate that courts typically uphold convictions with solid proof but allow leniency based on circumstances like time served.
Hunting may be permitted if:- The animal endangers human life or is incurably diseased. - Proper permissions from the Chief Wildlife Warden are obtained.
However, self-justified actions without procedure remain invalid.
Law enforcement must prioritize:- Documentation: Seizure mahazars, panchnamas, and credible witnesses. - Investigations: Separate treatment of criminal and disciplinary proceedings. - Awareness: Educate on Schedule I status to curb trade.
Prosecutors should avoid over-reliance on confessions, focusing on forensic and ecological evidence.
In summary, Indian courts robustly defend monitor lizards through the Wildlife Act, balancing ecology with justice. These principles from cases like seizures of body parts and live captures guide enforcement.
Disclaimer: This post provides general insights based on referenced cases and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific situations. Laws may evolve; verify current statutes.
References:1. - Protected status and ecology.2. - Evidence standards.3. - Procedural requirements.4. - Multiple FIRs.5. - Exceptions.6. - Trade seizure.7. - Disciplinary case.8. - Sentence modification.
#WildlifeLaw #MonitorLizardPoaching #IndiaWildlifeAct
The FIR has pointed out that “Monitor Lizard” is a wildlife animal as per Schedule 1 (part 2) under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and hunting of such animal is treated as a serious wildlife crime under Sections 2, 9, 39, 49B, and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. ... The photograph shows a hunted “Monitor Lizard”, locally known as Guiee, hung on a small tree and being cut out with sharp blade. ... It is only through investigation that all the facts, viz., whether the Facebook account of the....
Larze Bengal Monitor Lizard penis (Varanus Bengalensis) and sea fans (Gorgonian), transported the same and kept in captivity for the purpose of selling the same illegally. ... He revealed the name of accused No.4, who was also at Jamakhandi, who had kept 2 larze Bengal monitor lizard penis in his two wheeler which was seized under the seizure mahazar. ... Thus, it is stated that 79 larze Bengal monitor lizard penis and 503 sea fans were seized from the captivity of ac....
On 06th October, 2012 he along with three other members of the said battalion were caught red handed for indulging in illegal trade of Wild Water Monitor Lizard. ... They were charged with the act of illegal trading of Wild Water Monitor Lizard amounting to grave misconduct and gross indiscipline which is in contravention of the mandatory provision under Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ... In the case of Baljinder Pal Kaur (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed the pr....
On 06th October, 2012 he along with three other members of the said battalion were caught red handed for indulging in illegal trade of Wild Water Monitor Lizard. ... They were charged with the act of illegal trading of Wild Water Monitor Lizard amounting to grave misconduct and gross indiscipline which is in contravention of the mandatory provision under Rule 3 (1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ... In the case of Baljinder Pal Kaur (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed the p....
The post-mortem of the Monitor Lizard also reveals that the Monitor Lizard was strangulated. 7. ... His further contention is that the Forest Ranger after getting intimation went to the house of the petitioner/accused and found the dead Monitor Lizard in the petitioner’s house and his investigation revealed that the petitioner/accused killed the Monitor Lizard and tied it in the front portion of his ... The case of the prosecution is that the present....
They show their participation in cooking the meat of the Monitor Lizard and it's consumption as food by them. ... Cooking and consumption of the wild animal, the Monitor Lizard, as food resulted in it's destruction as contemplated by law. ... cars; that by these cars, one dead Monitor Lizard and some other articles required for its cooking and also a few liquor bottles were brought to the field and that the Monitor Lizard was then de-skinned, cut int....
separate cars; that by these cars, one dead Monitor Lizard and some other articles required for its cooking and also a few liquor bottles were brought to the field and that the Monitor Lizard was ... The applicant No.2 also had the taste of the portion of the meat of the Monitor Lizard, which was brought to the wild animal, the Monitor Lizard, as food resulted in it's Large Bengal Monitor Lizard i....
Lizard. ... It was further submitted that Monitor Lizard is a Schedule-1 animal and it could not be caught and killed as per law. Thereafter confessional statements of the petitioners were also recorded. ... Monitor Lizard was released in jungle at about 10.00 p.m. by the wildlife officials after preparing a proper panchnama. Thus, a complaint under Sections 9 , 39 and 51 of the Act was filed. ... Brief facts of the case are that on 05.06.2012 Azad Singh Inspector Wildlife along with Ram Singh Sub Insp....
Lizard was procured and the manner in which it was procured and also to ascertain as to whether or not there are more such Monitor Lizards having been illegally captured. ... It was revealed that this applicant had taken active part in acquiring, possessing and destroying a wild animal called Monitor Lizard, listed in Schedule-I to the Act of 1972. ... The D.N.A. report, available on record, discloses that the pieces of leftover meat seized from the spot of incident were of the Large Bengal Monitor #HL_....
Lizard, listed in Schedule-I to the Act of 1972. ... Lizard and then destroying it by cooking and consuming it. ... Lizard, having been illegally captured and brought to one agricultural field situated within the precincts aba.593.16 manner in which it was procured and also to ascertain as to p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin
In order to accomplish the task of revenge on the deceased, the first accused hatched a conspiracy with the accused 2 and 3, his brothers, and fourth accused, his friend, to put an end to the life of the deceased. (b) Accordingly on 31.03.1997 at about 8.00 A.M. the fourth accused Seeni asked the deceased to come along with him for hunting in the reserve forest. In pursuance of the conspiracy, accused 1 to 3 asked the fourth accused to go and bring the deceased to the forest area on the pretext of hunting Monitor Lizard (cLk;g[). At that time, P.W.1-Thangam, the cousin of t....
No person shall hunt any wild animals specified in Schedules I, II, III and IV except as provided under section I l and section 12. 11. Hunting of wild animals to be permitted in certain cases. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of Chapter IV. (a) the Chief Wild Life Warden may, if he is satisfied that any wild animal specified in schedule I has become dangerous to human life or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery, by order in writing and stating the reasons therefor, permit any ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
