IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 2591 of 2007(D)
1. PAILIKUTTY, S/O KOCHUDEVASSY,
... Petitioner
2. KOCHAPPAN, S/O KOCHU DEVASSY,
Vs
1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.SREEJITH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :19/07/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl. R.P. No. 2591 OF 2007 D
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2
in C.C. No.1268/02 on the file of the JFCM, Chalakudy, challenge
the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently
against them by the courts below for an offence punishable under
section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
On 2.5.1997, the three accused persons had trespassed
upon the government reserve forest in the Pariyaram reserve
forest armed with rifles, etc. and attempted to hunt wild animals
using the unlicensed country made guns and thereby committed
an offence punishable under section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala
Forest Act.
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge
framed against them by the court below for the aforementioned
offence, the prosecution altogether examined four witnesses as
PWs 1 to 4 and got marked two documents as Exhibits P1 and P2
and four material objects as MO1 guns( two in number), MO2
Crl.R.P.No.2591/07
: 2 :
shoulder bag and MO3 knife.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the
accused were questioned under section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with
regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them
in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those
circumstances and maintained their innocence. The learned
Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 14.1.2005 convicted
the accused of the aforesaid offence and each of them was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay
the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. On
appeal preferred by the revision petitioners as Crl. Appeal
No.113/2005 before the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-II
(Adhoc), Thrissur, the same was dismissed as per judgment dated
7.6.2007. Hence this revision.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners
assailed the conviction recorded against the revision petitioners
contenting, inter alia, that the accused were not arrested from the
spot and that their identification by PWs 1 and 2 cannot be
accepted.
Crl.R.P.No.2591/07
: 3 :
6. Both these aspects have been considered by the
courts below, who have recorded the conviction after an
evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case.
Eventhough on seeing PWs 1 and 2 at close quarters, the
accused fled from the spot abandoning the guns, etc., PWs 1 and
2 had sufficient exposure to the revision petitioners at the scene of
crime enabling them to correctly identify them from the dock. I,
therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the
conviction entered.
7. Now, coming to the question of adequacy or otherwise
of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners, what has
been imposed is only the mandatory minimum which does not call
for any interference.
This revision is accordingly dismissed.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks