RAVEENDRAN Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the 1st accused in C.C 422/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. He and two others faced prosecution in the trial court under Section 27 (1)(e) iii and iv of the Kerala Forest Act, on the allegation that on 4.6.1996, they trespassed into the Government forest and cut and removed a teak tree. The timber pieces of the tree allegedly cut by them were seized by the forest officers from the home-stead of the 1st accused. On the basis of the statements given by him, the others were also arraigned as accused on the allegation that the tree was jointly cut and removed by them.

(2.) All the three accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution examined four witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P3 documents in the trial court. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and projected a defence of total denial. Their defence is that nothing was seized by the Forest Officials from the home- stead of the 1st accused, and that they had not at any time trespassed into the Government Forest. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, and to pay a fine of 1000/- each under Section 27(1) , (e), iii and iv of the Kerala Forest Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the three accused approached the Court of Session, with Crl.A 123/2001. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II) Pathanamthitta found the accused Nos.2 and 3 not guilty, and accordingly they were acquitted in appeal. But the conviction and sentence against the 1st accused was confirmed. Now the 1st accused is before this Court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence on the ground that there is no legal evidence to connect him with the alleged crime and that the whole prosecution case is really suspicious.