REJIMON, S/O.KUNJU vs THE STATE OF KERALA

The revision petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2

to 4 in C.C No.112/2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court-I, Thodupuzha. The case against the 5th accused was

split up and refiled when he absconded from legal process.

The prosecution case is that on 22.12.1997, the

five accused trespassed into the Government reserve forest

(settled) and tried to cut and remove two Anjili trees,

thereby causing a loss of 5000/- to the Government. The

accused Nos.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty to the charge framed

against them in the trial court and they claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined five witnesses and

proved Exts.P1 to P4 documents in the trial court. The

accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial

court found the accused Nos.1 to 4 guilty under Section 27

(1)(e) (iii) of the Kerala Forest Act. On conviction, they

were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one

year and to pay a fine of 2000/- each by judgment dated

14.3.2003. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the

accused Nos.1 to 4 approached the Court of Session with

Crl.A No.105/2003. In appeal, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and

accordingly dismissed the appeal by judgment dated

3.7.2004.

Pending the revision, the 4th accused died and

his death was recorded in the proceedings.

On a perusal of the materials, and on hearing

both sides, I find that the prosecution has in fact failed to

prove the essential aspects. The prosecution case is that

the accused trespassed into the Government reserve forest

and tried to cut and remove two Anjili trees. PW1 and 4 are

the material witnesses relied on by the prosecution. These

witnesses have no case definitely in evidence that the

alleged act of offence was committed in the reserve forest.

Their evidence is that they detected the offence at the

property in the possession of the accused. They do not say

in evidence that it is a settlement area or part of the

Government reserve forest. When the prosecution, or the

main witnesses have no such case that the property in

question is vested forest or reserve forest, a prosecution

under the Forest Act cannot be sustained.

The Form-I report (occurrence report) in this case

was registered by the Forest Range Officer, and the

complaint was also made by him in court. The Forest Range

Officer who preferred complaint and who registered the

occurrence report is one M.V Joseph. The Forest Range

Officer who made complaint or who registered the crime is

not seen examined in the trial court. This is in fact a serious

infirmity. The evidence given by the Forest Guards can be

looked into by the court only when the proper person who

registered the crime and who made complaint is examined

in court. The prosecution has no explanation why the Forest

Range Officer who registered the crime and who submitted

complaint in this case was not examined. Anyway, on a

perusal of the evidence given by PW1 and PW4, I find that

their evidence is not satisfactory on facts to prove the

offence under Section 27(1)(e) (iii) of the Kerala Forest Act. I

find that the revision petitioners are entitled for acquittal in

the absence of proper materials for a prosecution under

Section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act, that the alleged offence

was committed in a Government Forest; reserved or vested.

In the result, this petition is allowed. The revision

petitioners 1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence under

Section 27(1) (e) (iii) of the Kerala Forest Act and they are

acquitted of the said offence in revision. Accordingly, the

conviction and sentence against them in CC 112/2000 of the

court below and confirmed in appeal will stand set aside

and the revision petitioners will stand released from

prosecution.