IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 356 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.786/2003 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT ADHOC II CC.383/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TALIPARAMBA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------- CHAPPILI BALAKRISHNAN,S/O.KORAN, AGED 41 YEARS,COOLIE WORKER,RESIDING AT NADUVIL AMSOM DESOM,P.O.NADUVIL,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.R. JAYAKRISHANAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rkc V.K. MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No. 356 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010 O R D E R The first accused in C.C. No.383/1999 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Thaliparamba and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 786/03 on the file of the Addl.Sessions Court, (Adhoc -II), Thalassery is the revision petitioner herein. He preferred the revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the court below under Section 21(1) (b) and (c) of the Kerala Forest Act 1971 as amended as per the Amendment Act 2/93 read with Sections 3 & 4 of Kerala Private Forest, Act, 1971. 2. The allegation against the accused is that on 09-03-1998 the revision petitioner along with other accused set fire to the private property which lies immediately to the boundary of the forest land that comprised in V.H.C. item 61, Chekuthankadu without taking adequate measures Crl RP. 356/2010 2 to prevent fire, consequently fire spread to bamboo plantation of Chekuthankadu which belongs to State and thereby caused loss to the State. On the basis of the above allegation in the complaint, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and a formal charge was framed against both the accused which was read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty. On appreciation of the evidence on records and materials, the trial court found that the revision petitioner/ the first accused is guilty under Section 27 (1) (b) and (c) of Kerala Private Forest Act, 1971 and Amendmant Act 2/93 read with Sections 3 and 4 of Kerala Private Forest Act 1971 and accordingly he was sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine Rs 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. As there is no finding of guilty against A2, he was acquitted under section 248(1) Cr. PC. Challenging the above conviction and sentence the revision petitioner had preferred Cr. Appeal No. 786/03 before the Addl.Sessions Court-II, Thalassery and by judgment dated 31-03-2009, the Crl RP. 356/2010 3 said court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Thus the above judgments of court below are challenged in this Crl.Revision Petition. 3. Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The specific case of the prosecution is that on 09-03-1998 the accused set fire to the private property which lies immediate to the boundary of forest land recklessly and with utmost negligence as a result of which fire spread on bamboo plantation of Chekuthankadu Forest which belongs to the State and as a result of which the State sustained pecuniary loss. The memorandum of evidence of the prosecution consists that of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and the documentary evidence such as Ext. 1 to 4. PW 1 is the Forest Watcher of Chekuthankadu forest and PW2 is the Forest Guard attached to Kudiyanmala beat. PW 3 is the Section Forester of Karamaramthattu section. When PW1 examined , he had deposed that on 09-03-1998 while he was working as Crl RP. 356/2010 4 watcher of Forest Department, firstly he found the burning of forest and immediately went to the place of occurrence along with other people and made attempt to prevent the fire making counter fire line. But his attempt failed due to the wind and the fire spread into 8 acres of bamboo plantation of the State and he had also stated that the accused were running away from the place of occurrence but could not arrested them. It is also stated by PW1 that the incident occurred on account of reckless setting of fire to the private property that lies immediate to the forest land. Through PW1, Exhibit P1 mahazar and Ext.P2 were proved. Another witness examined was PW2 who is also forest official and on 9.3.1998 he was working in Kudiyanmala beat which coming under the Thaliparamba forest range, and according to him he went to Chekuthankadu at about 1.30 pm on the date of incident knowing that fire was burning in the forest. He had stated that their attempt to prevent the fire spreading to the forest ended in failure because of heavy wind. He had Crl RP. 356/2010 5 also stated that the accused were seen running from the place of occurrence at the time of incident. He had also admitted and identified the signature in Ext.P1 prepared by CW4. PW3 who was working as Section Forester of Karamarathattu deposed that he immediately went to the spot and prepared mahasar and sketch and same was marked as Exhibit P3. 5. No evidence was adduced by the accused/revision petitioner and he simply denied the incriminating circumstances which put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The courts below after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record and the materials including the documents, found that the revision petitioner is guilty of the offence leveled against him. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that there is no evidence to connect the revision petitioner especially when the identity of the accused not established with the alleged incident. It is also the case of the Learned counsel that the prosecution has failed to adduce evidence and Crl RP. 356/2010 6 prove the fact that the revision petitioner had set fire to his property. It is also the argument of the learned counsel that no evidence is produced by prosecution to show that the revision petitioner has got property adjacent to the forest land etc. 6. I am unable to accept the above argument. Both the courts below have considered the evidence on materials properly and found concurrently in favour of the prosecution. Nothing brought out during cross examination of PWs 1 to 3 to disbelieve their version regarding the incident. PWs 1 and 2 specifically deposed before the trial court that they reached the spot without any delay and they found the accused running away from the spot. I find no reason to falsely implicate the revision petitioner in the above crime at the instance of PWs1 and 2, if the revision petitioner has no connection with the alleged incident. There is no serious challenge against that portion of evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the identity of revision petitioner. No materials is brought out on record or Crl RP. 356/2010 7 adduced any evidence during cross examination of PWs1 and 2 . Nothing brought on record to disbelieve those portion of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish any motive on the part of the revision petitioner to set fire to the forest belonging to the State. According to Section 27(1)(b) and ( c) any person who sets fire to jungles or forests other than Reserved Forest and a land proposed to be constituted a Reserve Forest without taking precautionary measures to prevent the spread of fire to Reserve Forest and land proposed to be constituted a Reserve Forest are liable to pay penalty under section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act. If the person doing any of the act mentioned in Section 27 is liable to be punished with imprisonment and with fine. In the light of the above definition contained in Section 27 of the Forest Act, if the fire is caused due to the negligence, the penal provisions Crl RP. 356/2010 8 are attracted and the prosecution is not bound to establish the object or motive for setting fire etc. Therefore the argument advanced by leaned counsel fails on that account also. No other legal points raised and all other submissions were based upon the facts involved the case which were properly considered and found against the revision petitioner by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. Hence there is no merit in the Crl.Revision Petition. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the court below. V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE rkc