High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2018-01-30Revision allowed; accused acquitted; conviction...

Sasidharan v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.R.P. No. 3328 of 2005

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. UBAID
Judgment Date: 2018-01-30
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is allowed. The High Court acquits the petitioner under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, and the conviction and sentence in C.C. No. 410 of 1998, as affirmed by the Court of Session in Crl.A. No. 239 of 2001, are set aside.
Final Disposition: Revision allowed; accused acquitted; conviction and sentence set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sasidharan, S/o Purushothaman, Cheenivila Veedu, Maravanchira, Thingal, Karikkakom, Pathanapuram

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V. Jayapradeep, Advocate

Counsels for Respondents

• Special Public Prosecutor Smt. K.P. Madhu (Forest Offences)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This case concerns Sasidharan, the first accused, who along with another accused was charged under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act for trespass into a Government Reserve Forest at Anchal Range and sawing a fallen Thenpavu log to extract pieces. The trial court convicted both, sentencing one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each. The Court of Session, Kollam, affirmed the conviction, and the two accused carried the matter to this High Court via a criminal revision petition (Crl.R.P. No. 3328 of 2005). On hearing, the learned judge identified several infirmities in the prosecution case. PW1 and PW2, though claiming to have seen the accused at the forest, did not specifically identify them as the men found at the site; PW4 identified them, but the overall identification was inconsistent. Exts. P3 and P4, purported statements of the accused, were recorded by a Forest Guard, not an authorised recording authority, rendering them inadmissible as confessions unless proof is offered by the recorder. The court also questioned the validity of Ext. P3 as a proper notification under Section 19 of the Act, noting precedents that require a proven notification. Arrests and mahazar details were deemed suspicious, and there appeared to be infirmities in the chain of custody and identification. Relying on these defects and precedents (Chacko Pyli and Adichan Sasi), the High Court found the accused not guilty and acquitted them, while setting aside the conviction and sentence in the lower courts.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Forest Act, Sections 27(1)(e)(iii), 27(1)(e)(iv)Section 19 of the Kerala Forest ActSection 72 of the Kerala Forest ActSection 313 Cr.P.C.Travancore Forest Act, 1068

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable eyewitness identification and inadmissible or improperly proven statements (Exts. P3 and P4) purportedly given by the accused. They challenge the certification and authority of the recording of those statements, and they emphasize that Ext. P3 is not a valid notification under Section 19 or under the Travancore Forest Act, 1068. The pervasiveness of identification discrepancies, suspicious arrest procedures, and inconsistencies in the mahazar undermine the prosecution case. The defence further argues that without a proper notification and valid confessions, the conviction cannot stand, and the appellate courts’ affirmation does not cure fundamental defects in the evidence, entitling the revision court to acquit.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that the prosecution proved the accused’s guilt through ocular testimony (PW1, PW2, and PW4) and documentary Exts. P1–P5. They argue that the seizure and mahazar corroborate arrest at the forest, and Exts. P3 and P4 were properly taken as part of investigation. They rely on established norms requiring a valid notification under Section 19 and argue that the magistrate’s discovery and the mahazar corroborate the officers’ actions. The respondents assert that the evidence, though subject to scrutiny, sufficiently establishes trespass and timber-cutting offences under the Kerala Forest Act, and the higher courts should not disturb the conviction absent clear, material infirmities.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chacko Pyli & Others v. State Of Kerala	1966 KLT 102	Positive	The court relied on the proposition that the notification under Section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act must be properly proved in evidence and a certified copy is required.
State of Kerala v. Adichan Sasi	1975 KHC 136	Partly Overruled / Limited	The decision discusses that a notification under the Travancore Forest Act, 1068 can be deemed under Section 19; the current case treats Ext.P3 as not clearly such a notification and thus applies the rule selectively.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sasidharan v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID** **TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 10TH MAGHA, 1939** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3328 of 2005** **IN CRA 239/2001 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM DATED 22-11-2005 IN CC 410/1998 of J.M.F.C.-II, PUNALUR DATED 15-10-2001** **REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/IST ACCUSED.** **SASIDHARAN, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, CHEENIVILA VEEDU, MARAVANCHIRA, THINGAL, KARIKKAKOM, PATHANAPURAM.** **BY ADV.SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.** **BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.P. MADHU (FOR FOREST OFFENCES)** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **dS** ## **P.UBAID, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.R.P. No. 3328 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30[th] day of January, 2018 ## **O R D E R** The revision petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C.No. 410 of 1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Punalur. He and the second accused faced prosecution in the court below under Sections 27(i)(e)(iii) and 27(i)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act (for short “the Act”) on the allegation that on 25.05.1998, they trespassed into the Government Reserve Forest within the Anchal Range, and sawed the log of a fallen Thenpavu tree into pieces with the object of removing the pieces from the forest. The offence was detected by three Forest Guards during their usual beat duty, and according to the prosecution, the accused were arrested on the spot by the Forest Guards. The arrest and the seizure was reported to the Forest Range Officer. The Forest Range Officer conducted investigation, and submitted final report in court. ## **Crl.R.P. No. 3328 of 2005** **-2-** 2. The two accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution examined five witnesses, and proved Exts. P1 to P5 documents in the trial court. 3. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. They also examined two witnesses in defence. 4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found both the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under the two Sections. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 15.10.2001, they approached the Court of Session, Kollam, with Crl.A.No. 239 of 2001. In appeal, the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Now the first accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the **Crl.R.P. No. 3328 of 2005** **-3-** legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence. 6. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find some infirmities in the prosecution case, the benefit of which must go to the accused. PW1, PW2 and PW4 claim to have seen the accused at the forest sawing the log of a fallen Thenpavu tree. Accordingly, they were arrested on the spot. Though they tried to run off and escape, they were caught by the Forest Guards, and after preparation of the mahazar, they were arrested at the forest. It is pertinent to note that PW1 and PW2 did not specifically identify the accused in the dock as the persons found by them at the Government Forest. Of course, PW4 identified the accused during trial. But PW1 and PW2, who are material witnesses, have no case that the two accused in this case were seen at the Government Forest. Their evidence is only regarding two persons found in the forest, and not specifically about the two accused in this case. Thus, I find that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is quite ## **Crl.R.P. No. 3328 of 2005** **-4-** unacceptable, and it would not help the prosecution in any manner. 7. Ext.P3 is said to be the statement given by the first accused, and Ext.P4 is said to be the statement given by the second accused. These two statements were marked through PW5, the Forest Range Officer, who conducted investigation. He claimed to have recorded the statements during investigation. But the statements will show that these statements were in fact recorded by a Forest Guard. It is not known under what authority the Forest Guard recorded the statement of the accused. If it is used by the prosecution as a confession statement, this extra judicial confession must be proved by the person before whom such confession was made. There is no such evidence in this case proving Exts.P3 extra judicial confession. To admit the statement under Section 72 of the Act, it must have been recorded by the authorised person. I find that the Exts.P3 statement is quite inadmissible, and the ## **Crl.R.P. No. 3328 of 2005** **-5-** accused cannot be found guilty on the basis of this statement. 8. Now the question is whether there is a proper and legal notification in this case as required under Section 19 of the Act. In **Chacko Pyli & Others** v. **State Of Kerala** (1966 KLT 102), a Division Bench of this Court held that the notification issued by the Government under Section 19 of the Act duly published in the Gazette is a pre-requisite, and it must be proved in evidence also. Only a competent person can certify the true copy of the notification. In **State of Kerala** v. **Adichan Sasi** (1975 KHC 136), this Court held that the notification issued under the Travancore Forest Act, 1068 is deemed to be a notification under Section 19 of the Act. Ext.P3 is said to be the notification. This is of course not a notification issued under Section 19 of the Act. It is not known whether it is a notification issued under the Travancore Forest Act, 1068. This shows that it is a notification under the regulation of 1068. The true copy or ## **Crl.R.P. No. 3328 of 2005** **-6-** the certified copy of a notification issued under Section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act, or under the Travancore Forest Act of 1068 must be properly proved by the person who certified it. This is what this Court held in **Chacko Pyli** 's case. The arrest of the accused by the Forest Guards is also suspicious in this case. The detection mahazar shows that the two accused are well familiar to the Forest Guards. Hiding themselves at the Forest, they identified the accused, and the mahazar contains their name, fathers' name, address etc.. The next sentence in the mahazar shows that all these details were collected by the Forest Guards from the accused. This means that there is no consistency as regards the identification of the accused at the forest. This makes the case of arrest at the forest suspicious. As discussed above, I find that there are so many infirmities in this case, and the benefit of all these must go to the accused. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The revision petitioner is found not guilty of the offences under ## **Crl.R.P. No. 3328 of 2005** **-7-** Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offences in revision. The conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner in C.C. No. 410 of 1998 of the trial court, confirmed in appeal by the Court of Session, Kollam, in Crl.A.No. 239 of 2001, will stand set aside. Sd/- **P.UBAID** **JUDGE** ds 01.02.2018 //True Copy// P.A. To Judge