IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1121 of 2001() ----------------------------------------- CRA.298/1999 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.108/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ ACCUSED ---------------------------- 1. RAVI, S/O. KRISHNAN, KUDIYIL HOUSE, HERYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. SHIBU, S/O. VARGHESE, KARIMPANACKAL HOUSE NERYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MP. NO.5270/2001 IN CRL.RP. NO.1121/2001 DISMISSED 06.06.2008 SD/- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE tss A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 1121 of 2001-B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008 Order Petitioners, who had been concurrently found guilty under Section 27 (1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest (Amendment)Act 1993 by the trial court as well as the appellate court, have preferred this revision petition challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against them. The trial court sentenced the petitioners to suffer simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for three more months each. The above order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on July 28, 1995 the accused had trespassed into teak plantation No.1965 of Kothamangalam range and cut down two teak trees. The accused were allegedly caught red handed while they were found rolling one of the logs of teak . 3. According to the prosecution, the two stumps of the trees from which the logs were cut were located. The remnants of the cut trees were also found nearby. The timber logs were taken into custody under a mahazar after completing the formalities. The value of the logs was assessed at Rs.1,200/- The prosecution further alleged that the stumps of the trees indicated that they had been cut days ago. Occurrence report was prepared and submitted before the court. 4. The prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and marked Exts.P1 to P3 on its side. The defence set up by the accused was one of total denial. Pws.1 and 2 were Forest Guards who had allegedly detected the offence. But these witnesses had admitted that they had not arrested the petitioners after allegedly apprehending them inside the forest. Pw.3 the Forest Range Crl.R.P.1121/2001 2 Officer had only verified the records and filed the complaint before the court. Pw.4 the Forester certified the contents of the mahazar. which was produced in the case as Ext.P1(a). 5. I have been taken through the deposition of the witnesses. I have also perused the documents marked in the case. It is pertinent to note that apart from the bald assertions made by Pws.1 and 2 that the accused were found inside the reserved forest covered under Ext.P3 notification, no other satisfactory evidence was adduced in this regard. Ext.P3 notification covers very huge extent of forest land. Prosecution witnesses had not bothered at least to make an attempt to give a description of the area of the forest from where the trees were allegedly cut. It is true that Ext.P3 notification was produced before the Court. The accused had a definite case that they were implicated in the case merely on suspicion. No independent witness was also cited or examined by the prosecution. I am not satisfied that total reliance can be placed on the evidence of Pws.1 and 2. It cannot be believed that Pws.1 and 2 would not have arrested the accused if they were in fact caught red handed. The explanation offered by these two witnesses also does not inspire any confidence. 6. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Therefore the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners is set side. Petitioners are acquitted. Crl.R.P is allowed. A.K. BASHEER Judge an.