Ravi vs The State of Kerala

P. Ubaid, J.—The revision petitioner herein is a member of scheduled tribe. In C.C.No. 1295/1998 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II (Forest Offences), Majeri he, along with accused Nos. 2 to 4, was convicted u/s 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act r/w Section 39(3)(a) and 51 of the Kerala Wild Life Protection Act, on the allegation that the revision petitioner and others trespassed into the Government forest on 8.8.1993 and shot down a sumbar deer. The revision petitioner was arrested on the spot by the forest officials, but the others could not arrested. The skin and bone found in the possession of the revision petitioner were also seized by the forest officials as per mahazar.

Aggrieved by the conviction, all the four accused approached the Court of Sessions, Manjeri with Crl.A. No. 362/2002. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence against the first accused, but found the accused Nos. 2 to 4 not guilty. Accordingly the others were acquitted in appeal. The sentence imposed by the trial court as against the revision petitioner herein, and confirmed in appeal is rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of 1,000/-. Now the first accused has come up in revision before this Court, challenging the legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence against him.

On a perusal of the case records this Court finds that the prosecution has well proved the case against the revision petitioner herein by the convincing and satisfactory evidence given by Pw1 to PW4, examined in the trial court. Ext.P1 seizure mahazar also well corroborates the definite evidence of the material witnesses, regarding the arrest of the revision petitioner on the spot, and regarding the seizure of articles like skin and bones of the deer. I find no reason to reject or disbelieve the evidence of the material witnesses regarding the detection of the offence or the arrest of the revision petitioner in the Government Forest. The revision petitioner does not have any explanation for the possession of the materials seized by the forest officials. Thus the offence alleged against him by the prosecution stands well proved, and in revision, I do not find any scope for interference in the conviction on the ground of any irregularity or illegality.

It was submitted that the revision petitioner has already undergone sentence for ten months after the conviction. In such a circumstance he was granted bail by this Court pending the proceedings in revision. This Court granted suspension of sentence and released him on bail on the ground that he was aged 65 years at that time, and also on the ground that he had by that time served out the sentence for ten months. The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the revision petitioner has in fact undergone sentence for ten months already. Now the revision petitioner is aged about 75 years, and admittedly he is a tribal. In the above circumstances I feel the necessity of modifying the sentence, by limiting it to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner. However, the fine sentence will have to be maintained. Subject to this modification in sentence, in the peculiar circumstances of the revision petitioner, this revision petition will have to be dismissed, confirming the conviction against him.

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed, confirming the conviction against him u/s 27(1)(b) of the Kerala Forest Act and Sections 9(2) r/w Section 51 of the Kerala Wild Life Protection Act, however, subject to modification in sentence that the jail sentence imposed by the trial court will stand reduced to rigorous imprisonment for ten months, which the revision petitioner has already undergone after the conviction. Since he has already undergone, the sentence modified in revision, the revision petitioner is let free. The bail bond executed by him will stand discharged. The revision petitioner will make payment of the fine amount within one month, on failure of which steps shall be taken by the trial court to recover the amount of fine or to impose the default sentence.