IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 602 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.29/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.523/1994 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-I THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1.SHAJI, S/O.THANKAPPAN, EATTACKAL VEEDU, MANJAPPARA BHAGAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, IDUKKI VILLAGE. 2.NAZAR, S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 28 YEARS, ANTHINATTU VEEDU, MANJAPPARA BHAGAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, IDUKKI VILLAGE. 3.SANTHOSH, S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 30 YEARS, VAMMATTATHIL VEEDU, MANJAPPARA BHAGAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, IDUKKI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSE SRI.JOICE GEORGE SRI.GREENY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE FOREST RANGER OFFICER, MANJAPPARA, IDUKKI, IDUKKI P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.602 of 2001 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 29th March, 2011. O R D E R The revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 3 months under Section 27(1)(e) (iii) of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, 'the Act')and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each under section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act by the Magistrate Court. In appeal, he was acquitted of offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. But, conviction and sentence under Section 27(1)(e) (iv) of the Act were confirmed. Hence, this revision. 2. According to prosecution, on 9.3.1994, accused nos.1 to 4 who are revision petitioners herein trespassed into the reserve forest at Manjappara and felled a teak tree costing Rs.900/- and sliced it and attempted to remove it and thereby Government has sustained a loss of Rs.1,250/-. They allegedly committed offences under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Act. Crl.R.P. No.602/2001 2 3. To prove prosecution case, PW1 and PW2 were examined. Exts.P1 to P3 and MO1 were marked. Both the courts below found that PW1 and PW2 are believable. However, appellate court found that there is no evidence to prove the felling of the tree and therefore conviction under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) is not sustainable, it was held. The conviction under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act was confirmed, since evidence establishes the trespass into the forest. 4. Learned counsel for revision petitioner put forward only two points at the time of argument; (i) non examination of the Investigating Officer who is Deputy Ranger, (ii) contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2. According to petitioners, evidence was not appreciated in the light of the defence set up by petitioners. It was argued that admittedly the Deputy Ranger who arrested the accused was not examined in this case and hence revision petitioners lost an opportunity to cross examine him and bring out the defence effectively. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that PW1 and PW2 who are Forest officials were present at the time of arrest and Crl.R.P. No.602/2001 3 seizure and they were examined in this case and their evidence remained intact despite cross examination. 5. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 establishes that the accused was arrested and hence, mere examination of another official witness is not a reason to acquit the accused, it is submitted. On going through the records, I find that evidence of PW1 and PW2 is acceptable and it will prove the prosecution case that the accused were arrested as alleged by prosecution and the mere non-examination of the Deputy Ranger is not sufficient to acquit the accused. 6. The next argument is that there are contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 in respect of place of occurrence. PW1 stated that forest officials came to the spot along 'Thadiyanpara-Menukudi' road but in the evidence of PW2 it is stated that the road was 'Neriyamangalam' road. On a close reading of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it cannot be stated that there is a fatal contradiction. The evidence of PW2 reveals that he referred to Neriyamangalam Road but he did not say in his evidence that it is through such road that forest Crl.R.P. No.602/2001 4 officials came to the spot. The incident happened about 2½ years prior to the examination of PW1 and 3 years prior to the examination of PW2 and this fact also has to be borne in mind while evaluating their evidence. 7. According to petitioners, forest officials had detected some wood which was lost from the property of one Jose. The forest officials asked the accused to take the logs to the forest office and when they took the logs to the forest office, they were asked to sign the mahazar and they were falsely implicated. This defence is not revealed from any statement made while questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused did not put forward any specific case before the court. 8. It is pointed out that in the cross examination of PW2, suggestions were put revealing the defence case. In the cross examination, PW2 stated that he did not know one 'Thadathil Jose'. He did not remember any teak wood being recovered from his property. He also stated that there was no incident in which teak wood was seized from the property of Jose and accused being brought to the Range Office. Mere Crl.R.P. No.602/2001 5 suggestions may not be sufficient to hold that some other incident happened. 9. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that there is nothing to interfere in the concurrent findings of the court below regarding the evidence of PW1 and PW2. No interference is warranted in the finding that prosecution established its case that the accused trespassed into the reserve forest. Hence the conviction under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act cannot be said to be unsustainable. Sentence is also proportionate to the gravity of offence. Hence this revision petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. kkms/