How would you react to a wild cheetah in your backyard or an elephant in your garden?
The rapidly growing human population and urbanisation has led to Human wildlife conflict (HWC) to its pinnacle. Human wildlife conflict (HWC) arises when animals cause a direct and reiterate threat to the safety or the livelihood of the people, leading to the persecution of that species.
These conflicts have posed a question that can human and wildlife coexist together?
However, this is not a new storyline – the human and wildlife have coexisted for millennia but the situation is more frequent and aggressive than before. Becoming a global concern for conservation and development to go hands in hand. The need for development requires a lot of natural resources that put the lives and existence of many wildlife species into danger.
HWC mostly affects large or carnivores from whom the humans feel threatened. Elephants, bears, big cats, primates, sharks, seals and many more. HWC also severely impacts the livelihoods, lives and security of the people from whom we ask to conserve the wildlife. There are many immense challenges around the HWC because the causes of these are very complex and poorly perceived. A single HWC has many socio-cultural, political and economical factors that need to be considered. From research and studies for a long time it has been clear that every HWC problem is different from the next and cannot be solved by the same methods used beforehand. Thus understanding the root cause of the conflict is much needed to mitigate the effect of such incidents. Efforts to address the situations without fully understanding the deep rooted causes and effects often leads to temporary solutions or worse exacerbate the situation in hand.
HWC are substantially “human-human” conflicts as the heart of the conflict is between the different stakeholders. Sometimes there are several groups assessing different interests and needs.
Even in some cases the success in species recovery has led to another HWC. For example where carnivores have recovered and expanded a huge population they pose a threat to villagers nearby and their livestocks.
The reports by UNEP says that it is impossible to completely eradicate the HWCs but a systematic approach can be devised to minimise the effects of these conflicts. The policymakers have to devise policies that can reduce the conflicts and create an ecosystem of coexistence between people and animals. Such steps needed careful studies on prevention, mitigation, response and rehabiltalation with the apt support of the local communities and tribes.
In India according to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, murder is defined as follows:
Murder.–Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or- 167 2ndly.-If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused. or- 3rdly.-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or- 4thly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any e
Culpable homicide (section 299 of Indian Penal Code, 1860)is defined as
By causing death of person other than person whose death was intended.–If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Culpable homicide is a term wider than murder. Therefore, Culpable homicide is considered as the genus while murder is regarded as a species. Murder is an aggravated form of culpable homicide. In culpable homicide the knowledge is not so definite, while in murder the offender has a definite knowledge that the act would be resulting in death. Thus, the probability of causing death is higher in murder than in culpable homicide.
CAUSES OF MURDER
CIRCUMSTANCES IN AWARDING DEATH SENTENCE
Supreme Court held that following mitigating circumstances are relevant and must be given weightage in determination of sentence.
The age of the accused.
The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to the society.
The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated.
That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence.
That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person.
That to condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
NAME OF CASES
State of Tamil Nadu v. T. Suthanthiraraja
State v. Sushil Sharma
Swamy Sharaddananda @ Murli Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka
Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar
State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran
ITS ONLY MURDER IF THEY FIND A BODY OTHERWISE ITS JUST A MISSING PERSON.