India’s most notorious wildlife poacher Sansar Chand died of cancer on Tuesday. Accused of killing countless tigers besides thousands of other wildlife species, Sansar and his associates were largely responsible for wiping out the entire tiger population in Sariska Reserve in Rajasthan by 2005.
According to a book by Raman Kripa, the poacher was blamed for killing at least 250 tigers 2,000 leopards, 5,000 otters and another 50,000 lesser wild cats and foxes. Known as the “butcher of Sariska” and “Veerappan of the North”, Sansar had joined the wildlife trade at the age of 13, operating mostly from Sadar Bazar market in Delhi. At least, five of his family members, were involved in the trade with him that stretched across international borders to China and Tibet.
The notoriety of Sansar Chand had shocked even the courts when they learnt how this poacher’s network single-handedly caused the disappearance of the entire tiger population from the once famous Sariska Tiger Reserve.
Chand had a long history of criminal activities. It started with his arrest in 1974 when he was caught with a huge cache of 680 skins including those of tigers and leopards among others in Delhi. He was then a juvenile, just 16 years of age, due to which the courts reduced his sentence to that which he had already undergone.
However, his release proved fatal to the population of big cats, as emboldened by his light sentence he went after the animals in a big way. His network grew and with time he prospered and in order to share the gains of the illegal proceeds, his wife, son and brother became equal partners in crime.
Between 1974 and 2005, Sansar Chand and his gang came to be accused in 57 poaching cases. Ironically, his trade in tiger skins, tooth, claws, and other body parts was not within India. The booty was passed over to China, where these products are in high demand.
His modus operandi was a rustic, hands-on approach, using animal traps or clubbing the animals to death and then skinning them. Thanks to lack of evidence, poor investigations, apathy of State authorities and possible bribery and intimidation of witnesses Sansar Chand managed to get acquitted time and again. He specialized in the trade of skins and body parts of big cats, especially tigers and leopards.
Diaries seized from Sansar Chand’s family by the Rajasthan Police way back in 2004 allegedly showed transactions of 40 tiger skins and 400 leopard skins, in a period of just 11 months from October 2003 to September 2004. During interrogation by the CBI in 2006, Sansar Chand apparently admitted to selling 470 tiger skins and 2,130 leopard skins to just four clients from Nepal and Tibet.
In 2005 the sleuths of Environmental Investigation Agency and Wildlife Protection Society of India together documented 160 whole leopard skins for sale in linxia with three large stocks of 36, 33 and 28 held by separate traders. In a seizure in India in 2005, 60 kilograms of leopard and tiger paws were recovered alongwith skins of leopards, tigers, otters, and snow leopard at a warehouse used by Sansar Chand’s clique.
In August 2005, chupas (traditional vest coats worn by Tibetans) made of 24 tiger skins, 54 leopard skins, and over 300 otter skins were openly displayed for sale in shop windows in lhasa, according to the shocking report of WPSI - Skinning the Cat. Chupas had become a fashion statement with leopard and tiger skin varieties fetching the highest amounts among the Chinese/Tibetan nouveau riche.
Seeing the growing clout of Sansar Chand in the trade of animal skins and body parts, the CBI in 2005 invoked MCOCA against him and his wife Rani, son Akash and brother Narayan Chand, against whom cases are pending in various courts.
While dismissing Sansar’s appeal against a trial court verdict, the SC on October 20, 2010 had held: “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….A large number of cases are pending against him in Delhi, UP and Rajasthan. Taking all these materials into account there is no doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offence charged.”