ROY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners were accused Nos.1 and 3 in C.C No.119/2002 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Idukki and the appellants in Crl. Appeal No.100/2005 and Crl. Appeal No.69/2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The offences alleged against the accused Nos.1 to 4 were punishable under Section 27 (1) (e) (iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and under Section 27 (1) read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is as hereunder; The accused Nos.1 to 3 trespassed into the Nagarampara reserve on 08.11.1999 and stripped off the barks of three Edana trees. On the basis of the allegations, O.R 5/99 of the Wild Life Sanctuary, Idukki was registered. During investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 were questioned and while so, accused Nos.1 and 2 had allegedly given confession statement, admitting their involvement in the alleged occurrence. They stated that they along with the 3rd accused have collected Edana bark one week back and sold it to the 4th accused. Accordingly, the 4th accused was arrested and the bark, which was sold by accused Nos.1 to 4, was recovered from the 4th accused.

(3.) Pursuant to the summons, all accused except the 2nd accused entered appearance. The 2nd accused reported absconding. Hence case against him was split up. After complying with the requisite formalities, the learned Magistrate framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 27 (1) (e) (iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and Section 27 (1) read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The charge was read over to accused Nos.1, 3 and 4, to which they pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, PW1 was recalled and cross examined by the accused. PW2 to PW4 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P13 and MO1 on prosecution side. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C . They all denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. The 1st accused stated that he was arrested by the Forest Guards from Paremavu and obtained his signature in blank papers. He denied his involvement in the crime. On the other hand, the 4th accused stated that he did not purchase Edana barks from accused Nos.1 and 3 as alleged. He added that the forest officials required him to supply Edana barks and on their request, he supplied Edana barks from a private land and produced before them. He maintained that he was implicated falsely.