Allowed

Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/3308/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition against a conviction for tree trespass and removal. The court found the prosecution case suspicious due to lack of proper seizure of timber evidence and failure to explain delays in report production. The accused was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

The revision petitioner was found not guilty, acquitted of the offence, conviction and sentence set aside, and released from prosecution.

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3308 of 2004 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 123/2001 of ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 422/1997 of J.M.F.C.-II,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:

¶9

RAVEENDRAN, S/O. BHASKARAN, REJITHA BHAVANAM, APPUPPAN THODU, ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SREEJA.V.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

P.UBAID, J.

¶16

~~~~~~~~~~

¶17

Crl.R.P No.3308 of 2004

¶18

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶19

Dated this the 7^th December, 2017

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petitioner herein is the 1^st accused in C.C 422/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. He and two others faced prosecution in the trial court under Section 27 (1)(e) iii and iv of the Kerala Forest Act, on the allegation that on 4.6.1996, they trespassed into the Government forest and cut and removed a teak tree. The timber pieces of the tree allegedly cut by them were seized by the forest officers from the home-stead of the 1^st accused. On the basis of the statements given by him, the others were also arraigned as accused on the allegation that the tree was jointly cut and removed by them.

¶22

All the three accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution examined four witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P3 documents in the trial court. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and

¶23

Crl.R.P No.3308 of 2004

¶24

¶25

projected a defence of total denial. Their defence is that nothing was seized by the Forest Officials from the homestead of the 1^st accused, and that they had not at any time trespassed into the Government Forest. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

¶26

On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, and to pay a fine of 1000/- each under Section₹ 27(1), (e), iii and iv of the Kerala Forest Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the three accused approached the Court of Session, with Crl.A 123/2001. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II) Pathanamthitta found the accused Nos.2 and 3 not guilty, and accordingly they were acquitted in appeal. But the conviction and sentence against the 1^st accused was confirmed. Now the 1^st accused is before this Court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence on the ground that there is no legal evidence to connect him with the alleged crime and that the whole prosecution case is

¶27

Crl.R.P No.3308 of 2004

¶28

¶29

really suspicious.

¶30

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find that the prosecution case is really suspicious. The prosecution case is that some timber pieces were seized by PW1 and others from the homestead of the 1^st accused, and a mahazar was prepared on the spot. The detection mahazar shows that all the three accused were present at the time of preparation of mahazar. There is no explanation why the accused were not arrested by the forest officials. The law under Section 52(1) of the Kerala Forest Act authorises any forest official to seize any forest produce or any property regarding which any forest offence is seen to have been committed. PW1 would say in evidence that the timber pieces were seized as per a mahazar, but when cross- examined by the defence, he stated that the timber pieces were entrusted to the house owner himself and those timber pieces must be now there. This means that the timber pieces were not in fact seized by him or taken into Government custody.

¶31

It is pertinent to note that the detection mahazar

¶32

Crl.R.P No.3308 of 2004

¶33

¶34

prepared by PW1 in this case does not show that the timber pieces found by him at the home-stead of the 1^st accused were seized by him or taken into Government custody. If so, it is not known what happened to the timber pieces. If his evidence is acceptable that the timber pieces were entrusted to the 1^st accused it requires explanation why he did so, or under what authority he did so. He has also no explanation why the accused were not arrested on the spot. The timber pieces were allegedly seized on 4.6.1996, but the Form I report under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act was produced in court only on 10.6.1996. The Form I report shows that the mahazar was verified by the Deputy Forest Range Officer on 6.6.2006. There is no explanation why the production of the report in court was delayed till 10.6.1996. I find that the whole prosecution case is doubtful and that there is no legal and satisfactory evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. PW1 does not know where the timber pieces are now, and he has no explanation why the timber pieces were not seized by him or taken into Government custody. This is an area where the whole

¶35

Crl.R.P No.3308 of 2004

¶36

¶37

prosecution case becomes really doubtful.

¶38

In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The revision petitioner is found not guilty of the offence under Section 27(1) (e) iii and iv of the Kerala Forest Act and he is acquitted of the said offence in revision. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence against him in S.C 422/1997 of the court below and confirmed in appeal will stand set aside and the revision petitioner will stand released from prosecution.

¶39

¶40

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE /True copy/ P.S to Judge

Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varghese M.O. Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Nazar Vs State of Kerala

Lintu Vs the State of Kerala

Santhoshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Raju V.S. Vs State of Kerala

Manoharan Vs State