IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 773 of 1998() ----------------------------- CRA.128/1996 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.120/1994 of JUDICIAL MAGISTARATE OF FIRST CLASS-I , THODUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS.ACCUSED 1 AND 2: --------------------- 1. KRISHNAN, S/O.KUNCHERUKKAN, KALAYATHOLIL, VANNAPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA 2. SHAJI, S/O.KRISHNAN, KALAYATHOLIL, VANNAPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.\ 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICERS, THODUPUZHA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.773 of 1998 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008. ORDER On a concurrent finding that the revision petitioners on 19.11.1992 trespassed into the reserve forest at Balanadu bhagam reserve in Venmony beat, cut and removed a Venteak costing Rs.1,000/- causing loss of Rs.1,250 to the State Government, revision petitioners stand convicted for offences punishable under Section 27(1)(e) (iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. They are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. The judgments of the courts below are under challenge in this Revision Petition. 2. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the alleged incident is not reliable. 3. PWs 1 and 2, the Forest Guards gave evidence that while they were on patrol duty on 19.11.1992 they found the revision petitioners engaged in slicing the timber in the reserve forest. The first revision petitioner was cutting the branches of the tree with an axe (identified in re-examination as MO1). The second revision petitioner was engaged in collecting the branches of the tree. PWs 1 and 2 took the revision petitioners out of the reserve forest. Ext.P1 is the mahazar prepared by PW1. They claimed that since the revision petitioners Crl.R.P.No.773/1998 2 were known to them and there was no possibility of the revision petitioners absconding, they did not arrest the revision petitioners. PW3, the Forestor verified the place of occurrence with reference to Ext.P1. Ext.P1(a) is the endorsement made by PW3. 4. In an attempt to show that the tree allegedly cut was from the property belonging to and in the possession of the first revision petitioner, the revision petitioners examined DWs 1 and 2. DW1 is their neighbour and DW2 is the Superintendent of Re-survey, Thodupuzha. Evidence of DWs 1 and 2 are not in any way helpful to the revision petitioners. 5. The contention advanced is that the version of PWs 1 and 2 alone is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the revision petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that it is the usual practice of the Forest Guards whenever they saw the stump of tree cut and removed in the reserve forest to falsely implicate innocent persons dwelling nearby the reserve forest as is done in the case on hand. I however, find it difficult to make any such generalisations so far as the cases registered by the Forest Officials are concerned. The question whether the evidence of Forest Officials can be believed, depends on the facts of each case. Here, no special motive was attributed to PWs 1 and 2 to falsely implicate the revision petitioners. It is also important to remember that in the deep forest, it is not possible to expect independent witnesses to the alleged felling of trees. What is required to be considered is whether there is anything in the testimony of the Forest Officials which affected its trustworthiness. Merely for the reason Crl.R.P.No.773/1998 3 that the revision petitioners were not arrested by PWs 1 and 2, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. MO1 has been produced as the axe used by the first revision petitioner to slice the timber. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Sitting in revision, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact entered by the courts below. The sentence awarded is in accordance with the statutory provision as on the date of incident. The Revision Petition fails. It is therefore, dismissed. Bail bonds are cancelled. Crl.M.P.No.3970 of 1998 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.773/1998 4 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.773 of 1998 ORDER 22nd September, 2008.