IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 687 of 2001(C) -------------------------------------- CRA.91/1997 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.215/1994 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI .................... REVN. PETITIONER : ------------------------ THANKAPPAN, S/O.PAPPAN, CHURAPUZHA VEEDU, 200 ACRE BHAGOM, MANNARKANDOM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK BY ADV. SRI.N.A.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ADIMALY IN O.R.29/93. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 687 of 2001(C) ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.3297 OF 2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO.687 OF 2001 DISMISSED 07.10.2008 SD/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL. R.P.No. 687 of 2001 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner along with others faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adimali for offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act for allegedly trespassing into the valiyathoni portion of Malayatoor Reserve on 30/08/1993 and two days before that and cutting down and slicing a teak tree thereby causing loss to the State Government. Revision petitioner is said to have been arrested from the spot while A2 and A3 escaped from the scene. Learned Magistrate found revision petitioner, A2 and A3 guilty, convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment and payment of fine. A4 was acquitted of charges against him. Revision petitioner, A2 and A3 preferred appeal to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge gave benefit of doubt to A2 and A3 and acquitted them. Conviction and sentence on revision petitioner was confirmed. Hence this revision petition. CRL. R.P.No. 687 /2001 2 2.Heard. Counsel for revision petitioner submitted that there is no reliable evidence to prove the involvement of revision petitioner in the alleged incident. Evidence given by PWs 1 and 2 are contradictory regarding the place of incident and time of occurrence. There is no reason to disbelieve evidence of DWs 1 and 2. 3.Case is that revision petitioner and others trespassed into reserve forest on 30/08/1993 and two days before that. PWs 1 and 2, guards have given evidence that on relevant day and place, they found revision petitioner and two others (A2 and A3) rolling logs of teak tree in the reserve forest. Their further case is that while A2 and A3 ran away from the scene, they arrested the revision petitioner from the spot. Exhibit P1 is mahazar said to have been prepared for the purpose. M.O.1 series axe and saw are said to be seized from revision petitioner and others. PW3, Forest Range Officer filed complaint. 4.DW1 claimed that on 28/08/1993 evening, two forest guards came to him enquiring about the house of revision petitioner, he along with forest guards went to the house of revision petitioner and CRL. R.P.No. 687 /2001 3 therefrom forest guards took revision petitioner to the forest office. Next day, wife of revision petitioner approached him and told him that revision petitioner has not returned. Thereon, himself and wife of revision petitioner went to DW2 and all of them reached forest office. They were told that revision petitioner will be sent back soon. 5.Learned Magistrate pointed out that version of DWs 1 and 2 cannot be believed since records of case revealed that revision petitioner was produced before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who was holding charge of the Magistrate concerned during the relevant time, on 31/08/1993 and revision petitioner was remanded to judicial custody since there were no sureties for him. He was released on bail on executing bond with sureties on 2/09/1993. If the version of DWs 1 and 2 that revision petitioner was taken to forest office on 28/08/1993 and next day, they had been to the forest office enquiring about the revision petitioner were true, there would not have been a situation on 31/08/1993 when for want of sureties, revision petitioner was remanded to judicial custody and he was released on bail only on 2/09/1993. The above cast doubt on the truth what DWs 1 and 2 stated. CRL. R.P.No. 687 /2001 4 Moreover, it has come in evidence that DWs 1 and 2 are neighbours of revision petitioner and necessarily therefore, are interested in revision petitioner. There is evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding alleged incident. The question is whether that evidence can be believed. 6.It is pointed out that while according to PW2 the incident occurred in dense forest, PW1 said otherwise. It is also pointed out that while according to PW1 they reached that part of reserve forest by 3 P.M, PW2 stated the time as 1.30 P.M. and Exhibit P1 states that PW1 started preparation of mahazar at about 4.30 P.M and completed it by 5.30 P.M. It has also to be borne in mind that PWs 1 and 2 were giving evidence on 30/08/1995 while incident occurred on 30/08/1993. Some mistake here or there in the evidence is therefore quite possible. The discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel are not sufficient to reject the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 which gets corroboration from Exhibit P1. That, revision petitioner was arrested from the spot gives further credence to the version of PWs1 and 2. I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of courts below that revision petitioner committed the offence as alleged . Sentence awarded also CRL. R.P.No. 687 /2001 5 require no interference. Resultantly, revision petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm