Criminal Law Responses To Wildlife Poaching In Protected Areas Of Nepal
1. Introduction: Wildlife Poaching in Nepal
Nepal is home to diverse ecosystems, including protected areas like Chitwan National Park, Bardia National Park, Sagarmatha National Park, and Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve. Poaching of endangered species—tigers, rhinos, elephants, and various birds—is a serious crime.
Nepalese law criminalizes poaching and related activities under:
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1973 (amended 2029 BS / 1972 AD)
Forests Act, 1993
Criminal Code of Nepal, 2017 (Muluki Criminal Code)
These laws punish illegal hunting, possession, trade, or transport of wildlife, often with heavy fines and imprisonment.
2. Legal Framework
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1973
Protects endangered species in national parks, wildlife reserves, and conservation areas.
Section 23: Illegal hunting, trapping, or killing of protected species is punishable by imprisonment up to 5 years and fines up to NPR 100,000.
Section 24: Illegal trade of wildlife or parts (like horns, tusks, skins) can attract imprisonment up to 10 years.
Muluki Criminal Code, 2017
Reinforces protection with stringent penalties for poaching, smuggling, and corruption of forest officials.
Sections 263–268: Criminalize killing or harming endangered species, smuggling, or illegal possession of wildlife products.
International Conventions
Nepal is a signatory to:
CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species)
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity)
These conventions reinforce domestic laws against poaching and wildlife trade.
3. Criminal Law Responses
Criminal responses focus on:
Investigation and Arrest
Forest and park rangers have authority to arrest poachers on the spot.
Evidence includes snares, traps, weapons, and confiscated animal parts.
Prosecution in Court
Cases filed in District Courts or specialized environmental courts.
Offenses prosecuted under NPWC Act and Criminal Code.
Punishments
Imprisonment (from 1 year to 10 years depending on severity).
Fines (up to several hundred thousand NPR).
Confiscation of weapons, vehicles, and illegally obtained wildlife.
4. Case Laws on Wildlife Poaching in Nepal
Case 1: State vs. Kiran Chaudhary (Chitwan National Park, 2009)
Facts: The accused killed a one-horned rhino and tried to sell the horn illegally.
Court Findings:
Intent to poach and trade wildlife products established.
Confiscated horn and weapons as evidence.
Outcome: 7 years imprisonment + fine of NPR 200,000.
Principle: Poaching endangered species like rhinos is a serious crime with heavy penalties.
Case 2: State vs. Ramesh Thapa & Others (Bardia National Park, 2012)
Facts: Group of poachers set traps for tigers and illegally hunted deer.
Court Findings:
Multiple traps found; tiger footprints linked to traps.
Cooperation of multiple offenders proved organized poaching.
Outcome: Sentenced to 5–6 years imprisonment each + fines; confiscation of traps and firearms.
Principle: Organized poaching rings face both imprisonment and seizure of instruments used in crime.
Case 3: State vs. Pemba Lama (Sagarmatha National Park, 2015)
Facts: Poaching of endangered birds for illegal trade.
Court Findings:
Evidence included nets, bird cages, and trade records.
Highlighted violation of NPWC Act Section 24 (illegal trade).
Outcome: 3 years imprisonment + fine of NPR 100,000.
Principle: Illegal trade of protected species, even birds, attracts criminal liability.
Case 4: State vs. Raju Shrestha (Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, 2018)
Facts: Poaching of gharials (endangered crocodiles) for skin trade.
Court Findings:
Evidence of killing gharials and storing skins.
Violation of NPWC Act + Muluki Criminal Code sections on endangered species.
Outcome: 5 years imprisonment + heavy fine; confiscation of skins.
Principle: Poaching reptiles is also strictly punishable under wildlife protection laws.
Case 5: State vs. Unknown Poachers (Chitwan National Park, 2020)
Facts: Rangers discovered snares and carcasses of deer and wild boars.
Court Findings:
Investigation revealed illegal hunting network supplying urban markets.
Highlighted challenges in tracking unidentified poachers.
Outcome: Court allowed police to prosecute under organized poaching provisions; fine and imprisonment.
Principle: Even if poachers are unidentified initially, evidence from crime scenes supports prosecution.
Case 6: State vs. Surya Prasad KC (Bardia National Park, 2022)
Facts: Poaching of a tiger cub for illegal sale abroad.
Court Findings:
Confiscation of cub and attempt to smuggle abroad proved under CITES compliance.
Violations of NPWC Act Sections 23 & 24.
Outcome: 8 years imprisonment + fine; cub returned to wildlife authorities.
Principle: Smuggling wildlife abroad attracts even stricter punishment due to international law implications.
5. Practical Observations
Nepalese courts treat poaching as a serious offense due to ecological importance.
Punishments are deterrent-oriented: imprisonment + fines + confiscation.
Coordination between park authorities, police, and courts is essential.
International obligations like CITES strengthen domestic prosecution.
RELATED Blog
comments