IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1602 of 2008()
1. KAMALASANAN,
... Petitioner
2. MURALI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. K.SHAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :17/09/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
CRL.R.P.NO. 1602 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008
ORDER
Petitioners are accused in C.C.508 of 1999 on the file of
JFCM-II, Pathanamthitta. They were convicted and sentenced to
simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- each
for the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) & (iv) of Kerala Forest
Act. The prosecution case was that on 21.1.1999, petitioners
unauthorisedly trespassed into the reserve forest at
Thottapuzhassery Bhagom in 1966 theku plantation area of
Thannithodu forest division and cut down a dried teak tree and
attempted to take away the same and thereby committed the
offence. Petitioners pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined
PW1, Forester, Konni Range, PW2, Forest Guard and PW3,
Deputy Ranger and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked.
2. Learned Magistrate relied on the evidence of Pws 1 and
2 and found that while on patrol duty, Pws 1 and 2 found the
petitioners cutting down a dried teak tree and attempting to
remove the same and when they tried to apprehend petitioners,
they ran away. Pws 1 and 2 had identified the petitioners.
Petitioners were subsequently arrested and Ext.P3 to P5
CRRP 1602/2008 2
confession statements were recorded, whereunder the incident
as spoken to by Pws 1 and 2 were admitted. Learned Magistrate,
on the basis of the evidence, found the petitioners guilty and
sentenced them. Petitioners challenged the conviction and
sentence before Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A.155 of
2004. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence,
confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.
This revision is filed challenging the concurrent conviction and
sentence, contending that courts below did not properly
appreciate the evidence and failed to note that petitioners were
not arrested at the scene of occurrence and were arrested only
later and Ext.P3 to P5 confessions were not voluntarily made and
they were made to give that statement by PW3 under threat and
therefore the conviction and sentence are not sustainable.
3. Learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge
appreciated the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 corroborated by Ext.P1
mahazar and Ext.P2 occurrence report. Evidence of Pws 1 and
2, if believable, would establish that on 21.1.1999, while on
patrol duty, when they reached Thottapuzhassery Bhagom in
1966 theku plantation area of Thannithodu forest station, they
heard the sound of cutting a tree and when they approached the
CRRP 1602/2008 3
site, three persons who were identified as accused, were found
cutting and removing the dried teak tree and though they
attempted to apprehend them, petitioners ran away and after
preparing Ext.P1 mahazar, they seized the articles and cut
pieces of the tree.
4. Though learned counsel appearing for petitioner
vehemently argued that evidence of Pws 1 and 2 cannot be
believed, learned Magistrate believed the evidence of Pws 1 and
2 and found that they had identified petitioners as the persons
who were cutting the tree at that time. The appellate court
reappreciated the evidence and confirmed the findings. I do not
find any material to disagree with the appreciation of evidence
by courts below. In any event, it is not a perverse appreciation of
evidence. If that be the case, apart from Ext.P3 to P5 confession
statement of petitioners, evidence of Pws 1 and 2 establish that
petitioners trespassed into the reserve forest and illegally cut a
dried teak wood tree and attempted to remove it from the forest.
Hence conviction of petitioners for the offence under Section 27
(1)(e)(iii) & (iv) of Kerala Forest Act is perfectly correct.
Then the only question is with regard to sentence. Section
27(1) provides a minimum sentence of imprisonment for one
CRRP 1602/2008 4
year and a fine of Rs.1000/-. Learned Magistrate has only
awarded the minimum sentence provided under the Act. There is
no reason to interfere with the sentence also.
Revision Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-