MOHAMMED RAPHY K.M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Annexure-I Crime No.113/2019 of Athirappilly Police Station, Thrissur, registered for offences punishable under Secs.451, 341, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended. The abovesaid crime has been registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the lady de facto complainant on 26.08.2019 at about 6.50 p.m., in respect of the alleged incidents which happened on the same day (26.08.2019) at about 10.40 a.m. in the morning.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the appellant/accused is working as a Forest Range Officer under the Forest Department of the Government of Kerala and that the lady de facto complainant belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and that her husband has been engaged as a Watcher in the Forest Department and that he had made a posting in the facebook making some remarks about the photograph published by the appellant in the facebook and that the appellant was thus enraged at her husband and out of that animosity, the appellant had come to her residence on 26.08.2019 at about 10.40 a.m. in the morning and had slapped the lady de facto complainant's husband, which was then objected to by the lady de facto complainant and thereupon, the petitioner had pushed her down and had pulled her nightie and that thereby the appellant has committed the abovesaid offences. At the outset, it is submitted by the appellant's counsel that it is indisputable that the lady de facto complainant's husband does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and that there are no allegations anywhere in the FIS that the appellant/accused as a matter of fact knew or was aware that the lady de facto complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community and that therefore, the invocation of the offences as per the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is uncalled for in the facts of this case. Further it is pointed out that the abovesaid allegations in crime are absolutely false and fabricated and that as a matter of fact, the truth of the matter is other way out. That the lady de facto complainant's husband was earlier engaged as a Watcher on temporary basis in the Forest Department and various complaints were received by the Forest Department against him, as can be seen from the various proceedings referred to in Annexure-III letter dated 28.05.2019 written by the appellant to the Forest Range Officer, wherein the appellant had ordered to terminate/disengage the service of the lady de facto complainant's husband's service as a Watcher. That it is only on account of the said animosity of the lady and her husband towards the appellant for having terminating her husband's service, the instant false allegations are made. Further that on 26.08.2019, the appellant and the other forest officials concerned had received a confidential information that the lady's husband has kept wild animal's meat in their house for illegal sale in contravention of the provisions contained in the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and the appellant after taking necessary permission from the Divisional Forest Officer concerned, along with another Forest Officer was asked to conduct raid in the house of the lady de facto complainant's house to detect the said wild animals meat and in course of that, the appellant and the other forest officials concerned had reached the lady's house on 26.08.2019 at about 10.40 a.m. and that the lady's husband thereupon assaulted the appellant and obstructed him from performing his official duties as a Forest Range Officer and prevented the conduct of the raid and thereupon, immediate steps have been taken to register Annexure-II Crime No.114/2019 of Athirappilly Police Station, for offences punishable under Secs.506, 353 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in which the lady de facto complainant's husband and the said lady has been arrayed as the two accused therein, etc. This Court had directed the Divisional Forest Officer, Vazhachal to file a report or statement before this Court to furnish instructions, as to whether the appellant had got prior permission from the competent superior officer concerned of the Forest Department to conduct the said raid referred to Annexure-II crime, etc. and also about the veracity of the allegations raised against the lady's husband in Annexure-III proceedings dated 28.05.2019. The Divisional Forest Officer, Vazhachal has now filed a detailed statement in this case before the learned Public Prosecutor and wherein it is stated that the lady de facto complainant's husband is not a member of the SC/ST community and further that various complaints were received about the misconducts committed by the lady's husband in his functioning as Watcher under the Forest Department. Annexure-R1(e) is the screen shot what's app messages sent by the Tribal Head to the Divisional Forest Officer, Vazhachal stating about the various misdemeanour committed by the lady's husband while functioning as Forest Watcher, including allegations that he frequently used to sleep in the forest dormitory without wearing any clothes, etc. Further that, the contents of Annexure-III proceedings dated 28.05.2019 and the contents of Annexure-R1(f) as well the various proceedings referred to therein have also been stated as correct. Further that on 26.08.2019, the appellant had sought for permission of the Divisional Forest Officer, Vazhachal to conduct the raid and due to paucity of time, the Divisional Forest Officer, Vazhachal had given oral permission to the appellant to conduct the said raid, as the scene of occurrence was about 40 kms away from the office of the Divisional Forest Officer. Annexure-R1(a) produced along with the said statement filed by the Divisional Forest Officer is the general diary entries maintained at the Kannankuzhi Forest Station, which would corroborate and establish the abovesaid facts, etc.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the investigation in respect of Annexure-II crime has been completed and as it was found that as the appellant has conducted the raid without wearing uniform and without proper search warrant issued by the Divisional Forest Officer and the said case has been referred.