JIMMY JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Sec. 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST (POA) Act' for convenience) at the instance of the 3rd accused in Crime No.703/2022 of Upputhara Police Station, Idukki where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 167, 195, 204, 211, 341, 348, 465, 294(b), 506(i), 330 and 201 read with 34 of IPC as well as under Sec. 3(1)(P), 3(1) (S), 3(2)(i), 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(2)(vii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served upon the defacto complainant as mandated under Sec. 15 A(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and the learned Public Prosecutor placed memo showing service of notice, the defacto complainant did not appear.

(3.) The prosecution case runs on the premise that the accused, in their capacity as Forest officials, had inspected the autorickshaw of the second respondent at the Vanmavu Checkpost in Kizhukkanam Sec. of Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary at about 9.00 am on 20/9/2022. On inspection, the second respondent was found carrying wild animal meat in his autorickshaw. Thereupon, OR No.1 of 2022 was registered as per Form 1 and report submitted to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana, alleging commission of offences under Ss. 9, 2(16), 2(20), 51(1), 57, 39(1)(6) and 39(3) and Sec. 429 IPC r/w 34 IPC r/w Sec.56 of the Wild Life Protection Act and Sec. 61(A) of the Kerala Forest Act. Accordingly, the second respondent was arrested and later remanded to judicial custody till 3/10/2022. Thereafter, as per Annexure A8 order dtd. 26/9/2022, the custody of the second respondent was given to the Forest Officer for one day. The second respondent was later granted bail on 1/10/2022. The second respondent being a member of the Scheduled Tribe, the tribal leaders and political parties started agitations, alleging that the second respondent was falsely implicated in O.R.No.1/2022 and he was tortured by the forest officials. Much after the second respondent's release, Annexure A1 crime was registered against the appellant and twelve others. Even though appellant moved an application for regular bail before the Special Court, it was dismissed as per Annexure A6 order viz. order in Crl.M.C. No.628/2023 dtd. 7/8/2023. Now Annexure A6 order is under challenge in this appeal.