The decision gives a major boost to tiger conservation endeavors and is significant as the trial of this case was pending for more than 21 years. This poacher was also associated with notorious poacher Sansar Chand in the past.

Besides three years' RI, a fine of Rs 10,000 for violations of Sections 9, 39 and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act has also been imposed on Dariya while his wife Bhagwati has been sentenced to the same quantum of punishment, with one-and-a-half year probation, for violations of the same provisions.

This is one of the few cases, in which a person has been convicted for abetment of offences under Section 52 of the Act.

The case dates back to 1988, when Dariya and his wife, along with 7 others, were arrested in Bahoriband range of the then Jabalpur Territorial Division and 1 tiger skin, tiger bones, 4 tiger paws, 3 cans of tiger fat, one hyena skin and 8 spring traps were seized from their possession. Unfortunately, all the accused were granted bail and subsequently absconded, leaving the trial of the case pending for over 21 years.

Dariya was again arrested on April 28, 2008 at the Corbett Tiger Reserve with 2 tiger traps and other poaching equipment, but was once again granted bail after a few months. On March 27, 2009, officers of the Katni Forest Division arrested Dariya and his wife in Ramnagar, Uttarakhand, based on information provided by the Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI). Both were posing as beggars in a market in Ramnagar at the time of their arrest.

Dariya and his wife are both residents of Samalkha, Panipat district in Haryana. Notorious wildlife poacher Sansar Chand had allegedly described Dariya as an expert poacher during his interrogation by the CBI in 2005.

Advocate Manjula Shrivastava, a noted lawyer working for WPSI, conducted the prosecution of the case on behalf of the Forest Department. The WPSI is working extensively for conserving wildlife in the country. WPSI Central India director Nitin Desai also attributed the verdict to the persistent efforts by advocate Shrivastava.

When asked about the prolonged duration of the case, Desai said that the tale of prosecution in wildlife crimes was the same in India. He attributed the lethargic conviction in such cases to the absence of a complainant (forest officer) in the prosecution, which is generally taken care of by lower level officials and the hearings keep getting extended. Desai suggested that the complainant should himself follow the prosecution process and the Forest Department should follow the process of prosecution adopted by the police.

The pathetic conviction rate in wildlife crimes can be gauged by the information available with WPSI, which says that only 18 of the 882 people, charged with tiger poaching, have been convicted over the last decade (2000-2009).