IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1152 of 2001()
1. SAJEEVAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :18/02/2008
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No.1152 OF 2001 &
Crl.R.C.No.9 OF 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of February 2008
ORDER
These two cases are being disposed of by this common
judgment, since they arise from the same proceeding.
2. The revision petition is preferred by the accused, five in
number, who have been concurrently found guilty, by the trial
court as well as the appellate court, under Section 27(1)(e)(iv)
of the Kerala Forest Act. Crl.R.C. has been registered suo-motu
by this court to consider the legality and propriety of the order
of the Sessions Court in appeal acquitting the accused under
Section 27(1)(e) (iii) of the Act.
3. The prosecution case in brief was that on August 23,
1993, the accused (six in number) had trespassed into
Machiyani area of Thodupuzha Reserve Forest and attempted to
cut and remove two teak trees standing in the forest land. The
specific allegation was that the accused were found to have cut
down one teak tree and top portion of another. The cut logs
and branches and the tools and other paraphernalia used for
this purpose, were seized under a mahazar. The accused were
Crl.R.P.No.1152 OF 2001 &
Crl.R.C.No.9 OF 2002
2
not either taken into custody or arrested, since on questioning
them they had allegedly given their “correct identity”. They
were however sent out of the forest area.
4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 and 2 and marked
Exts.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 to M.O.3. PW1 who was working as
the Forest Guard in that range during the relevant period,
deposed before the court that he had seen two of the accused
sawing the fallen tree while the other two were chopping off the
branches. Two others were seen cutting the branches with a
saw. The accused had trespassed into the reserve forest area
and had indulged in the above illegal act. On questioning them,
they gave their identity with address, He further stated that
Ext.P1, mahazar was prepared at the spot. The value of the
timber logs was assessed at Rs.4,500/- and the total loss
sustained by the State was estimated to be Rs.6,500/-. He also
stated that the area from where the accused had cut the trees
came under Ext.P2 notification. Form-I report was prepared by
him which was marked as Ext.P3. He also identified M.Os.1 to
Crl.R.P.No.1152 OF 2001 &
Crl.R.C.No.9 OF 2002
3
3. In cross examination, this witness admitted that there was
no reason for not arresting the accused. He believed the
identity and address as stated by the accused. Significantly,
this witness admitted that he had no prior acquaintance with
any of the accused nor had he seen them before. He was seeing
them for the first time on that date. He further admitted that
he did not know what happened to Form-I notice, after he had
entrusted it to the Range Officer.
5. PW2 was the Forester working in that range at the
relevant point of time. He stated that he had visited the scene
of occurrence and verified Ext.P1, mahazar and found the
contents thereof to be correct. In cross examination, this
witness stated that there would have been a corresponding
entry with regard to the incident in the ‘Beat’ diary. He further
stated that the diary would be available in the Range office.
6. Reference has been made to the depositions of the two
witnesses who were examined on the side of the prosecution in
detail, only to indicate that there is some force in the contention
Crl.R.P.No.1152 OF 2001 &
Crl.R.C.No.9 OF 2002
4
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was
absolutely no corroborative evidence to incriminate the
petitioners in the alleged offences. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel only PW1 was examined as occurrence witness.
PW1 stated that he had gone along with other beat guards for
duty on that day. No one else was examined. More importantly
Ext.P1 was admittedly prepared by one Mohammed Basheer,
who was stated to be the beat staff watcher. He had signed in
Ext.P1, Mahazar. But curiously, he was not examined on the
side of the prosecution. He would have been the most
competent witness to speak about the alleged incident.
7. In this context, it may be noticed that the accused had a
specific case that they were implicated in the case later without
any basis and that they were totally innocent. It is also
pertinent to note that the alleged incident had taken place on
August 23 1993. The complaint is seen prepared on August 24,
1994. But the complaint was filed before the court only in
November, 1995. There is absolutely no explanation for more
Crl.R.P.No.1152 OF 2001 &
Crl.R.C.No.9 OF 2002
5
than two years’ delay in filing the complaint. There is also
nothing on record as to what transpired in between and also
whether the accused had been questioned by any officer at any
point of time or their identity had been ascertained or verified.
The unexplained delay in filing the complaint, in my view, casts
a shadow of doubt on the entire prosecution case especially
since the version given by PW1 that he had let off the accused
without taking them into custody or arresting them is hard to
believe. According to this witness, he had believed the identity
of the accused as disclosed by them when they were found
inside the forest. Under normal circumstances, the accused
ought to have been taken into custody with the contraband if
they were found indulging in such an illegal activity.
8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, I am satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to get
the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the order of conviction and
sentence passed against the petitioners is set aside and they are
acquitted. Crl.R.P. is allowed. In view of the order passed in
Crl.R.P.No.1152 OF 2001 &
Crl.R.C.No.9 OF 2002
6
Criminal Revision Petition, no orders are warranted in Crl.R.C.
Therefore, Crl.R.C. is closed.
In the result, Crl.R.P. is allowed and the petitioners are
acquitted. Crl.R.C. is closed.
(A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)
jes
Crl.R.P.No.1152 OF 2001 &
Crl.R.C.No.9 OF 2002
7
A.K.BASHEER, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Crl.R.P.No.1152 OF 2001 &
Crl.R.C.No.9 OF 2002
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
ORDER
Dated 18th Feb. 2008