IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1557 of 2002() ------------------------------ CRA.81/1995 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.379/1991 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RANNI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- BABU S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, PARAYIL VEEDU, VILLUNNIPARA, PAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., CHITTAR. BY ADV. SRI.BIJI MATHEW SRI.S.BALAKRISHNAN CHETTIAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1557 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.379/1991 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni and appellant in Crl.Appeal No.81/1995 of Additional Sessions court, Pathanamthitta. He was convicted under Sections 9, 52 read with Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection)Act and section 27(2)(c) of Kerala Forest Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Sections 9 and 52 read with Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection)Act and rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 27(2)(c) of Kerala Forest Act by the trial court. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The first accused was found not guilty and was acquitted. On appeal, the lower appellate court acquitted him of the charge under Section 9, 52 read with Section 51 of Wild Life ( Protection)Act , but confirmed his conviction and sentence under Section 27(2)(c) of Kerala Forest Act. The second accused has now Crl.R.P.No.1557/02 Page numbers come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution as shaped in evidence before the trial court in brief is this : On February19, 1989, the accused persons trespassed into the reserve forest of Munpilavu in Chittar Beat in Vadasserikkara Range with the intention of hunting wild animals with loaded gun and chopper and that thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 9, 52 read with Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection)Act and section 27(2) (c) of Kerala Forest Act. 3. When the accused persons entered appearance before the trial court, they pleaded not guilty to a charge under Sections 9, 52 read with Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection)Act and section 27(2)(c) of Kerala Forest Act. PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13 were marked on the side of the prosecution. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate, the accused persons denied having committed any offence. No defence evidence was adduced. 4. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the revision petitioner/second accused guilty of the offence punishable Crl.R.P.No.1557/02 Page numbers under Sections 9, 52 read with Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act and section 27(2)(c) of Kerala Forest Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. The first accused was found not guilty and was acquitted. On appeal, the lower appellate court confirmed his conviction and sentence under section 27(2)(c) of Kerala Forest Act, but acquitted him of the charge under Sections 9, 52 read with Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection)Act. The second accused has now come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 5. The following points arise for consideration : 1) Whether the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 27(2)(c) of Kerala Forest Act by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal can be sustained ? 2) Whether the sentence imposed is excessive or unduly harsh ? Point No.1 6. PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on the side of prosecution. PWs 1 and 2 were Forest Guards of Chittar Crl.R.P.No.1557/02 Page numbers Beat and PW3 was the section forester during the relevant period. They have detected the offence. PW4 was the Range Officer. PWs 1 to 3 testified that while they were doing petrol duty at Munpilavu, they found the accused persons coming through the Reserve Forest and that second accused was apprehended on the spot and first accused ran away. PWs 1 to 3 categorically stated that revision petitioner was found inside the reserve forest . I have gone through their evidence. Nothing was brought out during their cross examination to discredit their evidence. 7. The counsel for revision petitioner argued that there is no evidence to show that the alleged place of incident is a Reserve Forest. I am unable to agree. Ext.P2 notification shows that the place of occurrence is within Konni Reserve Forest. Therefore, I am of the view that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court is justified in believing their evidence and coming to the conclusion that revision petitioner/second accused trespassed into the reserve forest and committed the offence punishable under Section 27(2)(c) of Kerala Forest Act. I confirm the conviction of the revision petitioner under Crl.R.P.No.1557/02 Page numbers Section 27(2)(c) of the Kerala Forest Act rendered by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal. Point No.2 8. As regards the sentence, the punishment prescribed under Section 27(2)(c) is fine of Rs. 1,000/- or imprisonment upto three years. In the present case, the revision petitioner has not caused any damage to the forest produce or hunted any animal. Further the incident occurred in 1989. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I feel that a fine of Rs. 1,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result, revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 27(2)(C) of the Kerala Forest Act is confirmed. The sentence imposed by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal is set aside. He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 27(2)(c) of the Kerala Forest Act. His bail bonds are cancelled. One month's time is granted for payment of fine. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv