Allowed

John @ Onachan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/830/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of two accused under the Kerala Forest Act. The judgment held that the prosecution failed to prove material on record and that the alleged confession statements could not be treated as valid confessions, acquitting the revision petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence are set aside; revision petitioners are acquitted.

John @ Onachan Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 830 OF 2005

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRA 100/2003 OF ADDITIONAL .DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR

¶7

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,THODUPUZHA

¶8

CC 65/2000 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I (FOREST OFFENCES),

¶9

THODUPUZHA

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶11

1JOHN @ ONACHAN
OOLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, IDAMARUKU KARA,, UPPUKUNNU BHAGOM, UDUMBANNOOR
VILLAGE,, THODUPUZHA TALUK.

¶12

2SAJVEE SO. JOHN
OOLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, IDAMARUKU KARA,, UPPUKUNNU BHAGOM, UDUMBANNOOR
VILLAGE,, THODUPUZHA TALUK.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,, THODUPUZHA THROUGH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

C N PRABHAKARAN SRPP

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl. R.P No. 830 of 2005

¶22

..2..

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2023

¶25

Revision petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.

¶26

65/2000 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Thodupuzha. By judgment dated 10.03.2003 they were found guilty for the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the aforesaid offences. On appeal to the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in Crl. Appeal No. 100/2003, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the finding of guilt as well as the sentence and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, revision petitioners have approached this court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.

¶27

Crl. R.P No. 830 of 2005

¶28

..3..

¶29

Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam, the learned counsel appearing

¶30

for the petitioners contended that the prosecution is inherently

¶31

flawed and therefore, the accused ought to have been acquitted. He further submitted that the only material to connect the accused with the alleged crime are two confession statements allegedly given by the said two accused. The learned counsel asserted that those two confession statements do not fall within the purview of confessions and that even the veracity of those confessions are questionable. It was also submitted that, in any event, the benefit of the doubt atleast ought to have been given to the revision petitioners. It was submitted that the very infirmities in the prosecution case was

¶32

not properly appreciated by both the courts and therefore, the petitioners ought to have been acquitted.

¶33

Sri. C.N. Prabhakaran, the learned Public Prosecutor,

¶34

on the other hand, contended that, as a court

¶35

Crl. R.P No. 830 of 2005

¶36

..4..

¶37

of revisional jurisdiction, interference with the concurrent findings of fact should not be carried out, and since both the courts had concurrently found the accused guilty, relying upon the two confession statements produced as Ext.P6 and Ext.P7, this court ought not to interfere with the findings. It was further submitted that petitioners are alleged to have cut and removed rosewood trees from forest areas and considering the seriousness of the offences alleged, no interference is warranted in the circumstances.

¶38

According to the prosecution, on 31.12.1997, the accused had trespassed into Thodupuzha Reserve Forest at Mullaringadu area and cut down two rosewood trees. Again on 29.08.1998 they are alleged to have attempted to remove the timber causing a loss of Rs.2,500/- to the State and thereby committed the offences under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

¶39

Crl. R.P No. 830 of 2005

¶40

..5..

¶41

The only two witnesses, who were examined for the

¶42

purpose of proving the guilt of the accused were PWs 1 and 2,

¶43

who were Beat Guards in the forest department. On 31.12.1997 they found two stumps of rosewood tree remaining inside the forest. At the time of detecting those stumps, they had not recovered any timber nor identified any person as having cut and removed the tree. It was only after almost nine months on 29.08.1998 that the very same Beat Guards (PWs1 and 2) found the accused carrying on their head, two loads of rosewood timber. It had come out in the evidence of PW2 that on apprehending the accused on 29.08.1998 after taking their statements, they had let them go, without arresting them. The said conduct raises suspicion and doubts on the veracity of the prosecution case.

¶44

Apart from the above, the only two materials that were

¶45

relied upon by the prosecution to connect the petitioners with

¶46

Crl. R.P No. 830 of 2005

¶47

..6..

¶48

the crime are Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 which were stated to be

¶49

confession statements given by the accused. Ext.P6 contains a thumb impression, while Ext.P7 contains a signature. There is no reliable evidence to connect Ext.P6 with the 1st accused or Ext.P7 with the 2nd accused. The date on which Ext.P6 and Ext. P7 were taken down or the person by whom it was taken down and the place at which it was taken down have all not come on record, except for a whisper by PW2 during cross-examination that Ext.P6 was taken down by them. Even otherwise, on a reading of Ext.P6 and Ext.P7, it is evident that those statements cannot be treated as confessions for the purpose of finding the guilt of the petitioners. The trial court had in fact observed in its judgment that there is a difference in the signature in Ext.P7. Taking into reckoning the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the view that Exts.P6 and P7 could not have been treated as confession statements, and reliance upon the said material to implicate the petitioners was

¶50

Crl. R.P No. 830 of 2005

¶51

..7..

¶52

inherently erroneous.

¶53

The trial court as well as the appellate court proceeded on the basis that the accused had failed to explain as to how the signature and thumb impression were obtained by the forest officials. The said reasoning is contrary to the criminal jurisprudence of our country as the burden is entirely upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.

¶54

In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the finding of guilt rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Thodupuzha in C.C. No. 65/2000 as against the petitioners was irregular and improper. Consequently, the confirmation of the said conviction and sentence by the appellate court is also incorrect and is liable to be interfered.

¶55

Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the

¶56

Crl. R.P No. 830 of 2005

¶57

..8..

¶58

revision petitioners/accused in C.C. No. 65/2000 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Thodupuzha as confirmed in Crl.Appeal No. 100/2003 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha are hereby set aside and the revision petitioners are acquitted.

¶59

The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed as above.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶62

RMV

John @ Onachan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John @ Onachan 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

Kamarudheen Vs State of Kerala

Pushpa @ Pushpakumary Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Madhu.v.R Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government

Ambujakshan Vs State of Kerala

George Antony Vs State of Kerala