PAVANAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the accused in CC No. 394/1995 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - I, Thodupuzha and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 127/1998 of the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. A complaint was filed by the Forest Range Officer, Kuttampuzha against these petitioners, alleging offences punishable under S.27(1)(e)(i) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, alleging that, on 24/04/1994 and two days prior to it, they committed trespass into the reserve forest, cleared reeds and the undergrowth thereon, and attempted to take possession of the forest land. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 and 2 were examined before the Trial Court and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked. The Trial Court found the petitioners guilty of the offences, convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each on each count. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the petitioners approached the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha with Criminal Appeal No. 127/1998. The learned Sessions Judge concurred with the findings entered by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioners are tribals and presently they are being styled as forest dwellers as per Act 2 of 2007. Presently, the forest dwellers are permitted to collect forest produce for their livelihood. They are permitted to collect reeds also from the forest. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests), as on the date of occurrence, they had no authority at all to collect reeds or to trespass into the reserve forest. At the same time, it is a fact that even from time immemorial, the present forest dwellers and their ancestors had been occupying reserve forest. The clashes in between them as well as the outsiders and forest officials used to result in unpleasant circumstances.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that, apart from clearing some reeds, there is no allegation that they have committed any other offence by cutting or removing any other trees from forest. It is true that literally they were trespassers, if they had done the acts of clearing reeds or undergrowth from the forest. Such stringent provisions were watered down subsequently through Act 2 of 2007 as far as those tribal people are concerned. When a beneficial legislation is subsequently legislated, this Court is of the view that, in the interest of justice, such benefits could be extended to these tribal people also. When they are residing in forest and eking their livelihood by collecting forest produce, etc., they cannot be strictly termed as mere trespassers in the forest, especially when they had not done any serious damage to any of the trees in the forest.