P K SANTHOSH Vs. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PERUVANNAMUZHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 in C.C. No.146/2003 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Perambra. The accused Nos.1 and 7 are brothers. The seven accused faced prosecution in the court below under Section 51 read with Sections 2(16) and 9(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, on the allegation that on 4.11.2000, they hunted a barking deer at the Government forest within the Kakkayam Forest Range, collected it's meat, and shared it. The offence was detected by a team of forest officials on a search conducted at the house of the accused Nos.1 and 7 at about 12 noon on 4.11.2000. A quantity of 2.5 kgs of meat of barking deer was seized from the possession of the accused Nos.1 and 7 at their house, and when interrogated by the forest officials, they gave the details of the accused Nos.2 to 6. Accordingly, the forest officials conducted a search at the house of the 2nd accused, and they seized 1 kg of meat. Thereafter, they conducted a search at the house of the 6th accused, and from the said house also, they seized 1 kg of meat. Thus, the forest officials seized a total of 4.5 kg of meat, and arrested the accused Nos.1, 2 and 7. The 6th accused was not present at his house when search was made by the forest officials. The accused Nos.1, 2 and 7 were produced before the Section Forester, who arrested them, and in turn they were produced before the Forest Range Officer for producing them in court. On the basis of the arrest and seizure, a Form-I report was prepared and sent to court, and after investigation, the Forest Range Officer filed complaint in court. All the seven accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Section 51 read with Sections 2(16) and 9(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act.

(2.) The prosecution examined three witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P11 documents in the trial court. All the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. They did not adduce any evidence in defence.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 not guilty, and accordingly, they were acquitted. But, the accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 were found guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000/- each. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 19.2005, the accused approached the Court of Session, Kozhikode with Crl.A. No.280/2005. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Kozhikode confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Now, the accused are before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.