IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1752 of 2004(D)
1. SUNIL KUMAR, WRONGLY SHOWN AS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.KURUP
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :12/08/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1752 OF 2004
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008
O R D E R
On the basis of an occurrence report by the Forest Range
Officer, Olavakkode, three persons were prosecuted for offences
punishable under Section 27 (1) (d) of the Kerala Forest Act on
the allegation that on 29.10.1996, they trespassed into the
reserve forest at the location described and were found to be in
possession of teak billets illicitly removed from the reserve
forest. The court of first instance convicted all the three and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
each, along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, with a default
sentence. The court of session accepted the appeal of accused
persons 1 and 2 and acquitted them. The conviction and
sentence imposed by the court of first instance on the third
accused was confirmed by the court of session. Hence, this
revision by him.
Crl.RP.1752/04
Page numbers
2. The courts below have concurrently found credibility in the
versions of PWs.1 and 2 that they apprehended the third accused
(revision petitioner) along with contraband and the vehicle, an
autorikshaw. Ext.P5 statement given by the third accused to
PW2 was proved by PW2. With the support of that statement,
even the court of session had taken the clear view that the
identification of the third accused by PWs.1 and 2 cannot be
doubted and they had seen him properly. The fact that the scene
of occurrence was a reserve forest stood proved by Ext.P8. The
legal evidence on record led to the conclusion that the revision
petitioner, the third accused, had trespassed into the reserve
forest and had removed 10 billets of teak. The court of session,
on appreciation of the evidence, also repelled the contention that
no eye witness was called for attesting the mahazar. The
accused was intercepted at 4 a.m. by the beat team of the forest
department. The contention that if the teak billets were placed
in the autorikshaw, none could have travelled thereon and the
further contention that there is no evidence produced to show
that the teak billets recovered from the third accused was
Crl.RP.1752/04
Page numbers
stocked at the reserve forest were rejected by the courts below.
On appreciation of evidence, I do not find that there is any
illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the courts below. I do
not think the conviction or the sentence imposed warrants
interference.
In the result, the revision petition fails. The same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.13/8.