IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 454 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.33/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR CC.480/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. JOY, S/O YOHANNAN, THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, PANIYELI, KOMBANAD VILLAGE 2. VARKEY @ ETTU VARKEY, S/O KURIAN, KOONATHAN HOUSE, PARIYELI KARA, KOMBANAD VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KODANAD, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, EKM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.R.P.454/2001 -------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 ORDER The accused in C.C.No.480/95 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Perumbavoor, are the petitioners herein. They were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)III and 27(1)(e)IV of the Forest Act. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with a default sentence of three months under each one of the offences, with the sentence of substantive imprisonment to run concurrently. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal and hence this Revision. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 1.11.1993, the accused had criminally trespassed into the 1970 Teak Plantation and cut down one ‘Elavu tree’ and one ‘Teak tree’. They had converted the same into logs and tried to remove the same by causing loss to Crl.R.P.454/2001 2 the Government. PWs 2 and 3 are the witnesses to the occurrence. On 1.11.93, while they were on beat duty, they detected the case and seized the thondy timber. PW1 filed the complaint. The stand taken by the accused was one of total denial, and they sought to establish this with the evidence of DWs1 and 2. DWs1 and 2 deposed that they had seen the accused being taken by the Forest officials from their residential house on the night of 31.10.1993. They also set up a case that a false case was foisted on the petitioners, for the reason that they had lodged a complaint against another Forester by name Sasidharan Nair. 3. The Courts below, disbelieved the testimony of DWs1 and 2. It was found to be artificial. I have scanned the evidence and I find that the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse or otherwise irregular or illegal. The demeanour of DWs1 and 2 would have been noted by the trial Court. The manner in which they had sought to identify the persons in the spot when the accused were Crl.R.P.454/2001 3 allegedly being brought back from the forest in the dead of night, seems to be artificial and it was so rightly found by the trial Court. The testimony of DWs1 and 2 were not accepted; thus it is clear that there is no other explanation sought to be offered by the accused. 4. On the other hand, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. PWs2 and 3 spoke about their finding the accused in a reserved forest area. Mahazar was prepared on the spot. Nothing has been brought out to discredit the testimony of DWs2 and 3. if that be so, the conviction and sentence of the accused does not warrant any interference as such. 5. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the Criminal Revision Petition lacks merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs