THANGAVELU ODAYAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision sought to be preferred against the conviction and sentence by the learned Sub-Magistrate, Vridhachalam, and confirmed by the Judicial District Magistrate of South Arcot in C. A. No. 263 of 1957.

(2.) THE facts are: Under the aegis of two persons convicted by the trial Court but acquitted by the appellate Court, viz. , accused 1 and 2 and with the merits of which acquittal we are not concerned here, as no appeal has been preferred by the state, the three revision petitioners before us and a number of coolies were caught red-handed cutting and removing Karuvela trees in lorry loads. How these people came to be caught red-handed was as follows: P. W. 3 the Thotti of Sirunesslur on coming to know that the accused persons were cutting the Karuvela trees in the Eri Poramboke of Sirunesslur went there and found them with the aid of coolies cutting and arranging to take away the same in a lorry found later to bear No. MDH. 2031. P. W. 3 returned to the village and reported to the village munsif P. W. 2, P. W. 2 took the karnam P W. 1 with him and went to the place of offence. The village officers asked the persons cutting and taking away the Karuvela trees to desist but in vain. P. W. 2 went to report to the Revenue Inspector. P. W. 1 went to report to the higher authorities. In alighting at Vridhachalam he learnt that the District Collector and the Executive Magistrate was camping at Thittagudi. He gave information to the Collector who accompanied by the Veppore Police went in Jeeps and other conveyances to Sirunesslur Eri and surrounded the area, where the offence was being committed. On seeing them the coolies ran away. The accused who were directing the operation and participating in the. movement of cutting and loading were caught red-handed. In fact the seizures in the case show that they have been camping there and making it their temporary head-quarters. The Tahsildar of the locality P. W. 5 recorded the statement of accused 3 to 5 (Revision Petitioners) wherein they confessed to their cutting the trees and removing them under the aegis of the acquitted Accused 1 and 2. It was found that by time the District Collector went there to apprehend the culprits lorry loads of Karuvela trees cut there had already been despatched. They were also seized.

(3.) THE defence of the revision petitioners was that like a largo number of villagers they went to the scene on hearing the Collector and others had come and though they were nothing more than Tamashabins or sight-seers they were apprehended as culprits and that their confessional statements were tutored and enforced. Their alternative plea was that what was done was without dishonest intention and under a bona fide claim of right i. e. , the trees belonged to Accused 1 as President of the Panchayat. Both the Courts below holding that the prosecution had affirmatively and satisfactorily proved their case and that the defence put forward was totally false convicted them under Section 379, IPC and sentenced each of them to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. Hence this revision.