IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 687 of 2001()
1. THANKAPPAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.A.MURALEEDHARAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :07/10/2008
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------
CRL. R.P.No. 687 of 2001
------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008
O R D E R
Revision petitioner along with others faced trial in the court of
learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adimali for offences punishable
under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act for
allegedly trespassing into the valiyathoni portion of Malayatoor
Reserve on 30/08/1993 and two days before that and cutting down and
slicing a teak tree thereby causing loss to the State Government.
Revision petitioner is said to have been arrested from the spot while A2
and A3 escaped from the scene. Learned Magistrate found revision
petitioner, A2 and A3 guilty, convicted and sentenced them to undergo
imprisonment and payment of fine. A4 was acquitted of charges
against him. Revision petitioner, A2 and A3 preferred appeal to the
Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge gave benefit of doubt to A2
and A3 and acquitted them. Conviction and sentence on revision
petitioner was confirmed. Hence this revision petition.
CRL. R.P.No. 687 /2001
2
2.Heard. Counsel for revision petitioner submitted that there is no
reliable evidence to prove the involvement of revision petitioner in the
alleged incident. Evidence given by PWs 1 and 2 are contradictory
regarding the place of incident and time of occurrence. There is no
reason to disbelieve evidence of DWs 1 and 2.
3.Case is that revision petitioner and others trespassed into
reserve forest on 30/08/1993 and two days before that. PWs 1 and 2,
guards have given evidence that on relevant day and place, they found
revision petitioner and two others (A2 and A3) rolling logs of teak tree
in the reserve forest. Their further case is that while A2 and A3 ran
away from the scene, they arrested the revision petitioner from the spot.
Exhibit P1 is mahazar said to have been prepared for the purpose.
M.O.1 series axe and saw are said to be seized from revision petitioner
and others. PW3, Forest Range Officer filed complaint.
4.DW1 claimed that on 28/08/1993 evening, two forest guards
came to him enquiring about the house of revision petitioner, he along
with forest guards went to the house of revision petitioner and
CRL. R.P.No. 687 /2001
3
therefrom forest guards took revision petitioner to the forest office.
Next day, wife of revision petitioner approached him and told him that
revision petitioner has not returned. Thereon, himself and wife of
revision petitioner went to DW2 and all of them reached forest office.
They were told that revision petitioner will be sent back soon.
5.Learned Magistrate pointed out that version of DWs 1 and 2
cannot be believed since records of case revealed that revision
petitioner was produced before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who
was holding charge of the Magistrate concerned during the relevant
time, on 31/08/1993 and revision petitioner was remanded to judicial
custody since there were no sureties for him. He was released on bail
on executing bond with sureties on 2/09/1993. If the version of DWs
1 and 2 that revision petitioner was taken to forest office on 28/08/1993
and next day, they had been to the forest office enquiring about the
revision petitioner were true, there would not have been a situation on
31/08/1993 when for want of sureties, revision petitioner was
remanded to judicial custody and he was released on bail only on
2/09/1993. The above cast doubt on the truth what DWs 1 and 2 stated.
CRL. R.P.No. 687 /2001
4
Moreover, it has come in evidence that DWs 1 and 2 are neighbours of
revision petitioner and necessarily therefore, are interested in revision
petitioner. There is evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding alleged
incident. The question is whether that evidence can be believed.
6.It is pointed out that while according to PW2 the incident
occurred in dense forest, PW1 said otherwise. It is also pointed out
that while according to PW1 they reached that part of reserve forest by
3 P.M, PW2 stated the time as 1.30 P.M. and Exhibit P1 states that
PW1 started preparation of mahazar at about 4.30 P.M and completed it
by 5.30 P.M. It has also to be borne in mind that PWs 1 and 2 were
giving evidence on 30/08/1995 while incident occurred on 30/08/1993.
Some mistake here or there in the evidence is therefore quite possible.
The discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel are not sufficient to
reject the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 which gets corroboration from
Exhibit P1. That, revision petitioner was arrested from the spot gives
further credence to the version of PWs1 and 2. I find no reason to
interfere with the concurrent finding of courts below that revision
petitioner committed the offence as alleged . Sentence awarded also
CRL. R.P.No. 687 /2001
5
require no interference.
Resultantly, revision petition fails and it is dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE
scm