Kerala High Court
Sasi vs Forest Range Officer on 8 November, 2024
Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 1 2024:KER:83587
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 98 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A NO.43 OF 2015 OF
SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT
IN CC NO.279 OF 2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
RANNI
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
1 SASI, AGED 43,
S/O. NANU, PONGAPARA HOUSE, KOTTAMONPARA,
CHITTAR, SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
2 VIJESH, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O. RAGHAVAN, ADIYANKARA HOUSE, KOTTAMONPARA,
CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY SRI.VIVEK JOSE PUTHUKULANGARA-AMICUS CURIAE
BY ADV SRI.V.SETHUNATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 FOREST RANGE OFFICER
RANNI FOREST RANGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY SRI.ARAVIND V. MATHEW-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 25.9.2024, THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 2 2024:KER:83587
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024
ORDER
Revision Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.279/2010 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Ranni and they are the appellants in Crl.A.No.43/2015 of Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. They assail the concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence against them for the offence punishable under Section 9 r/w Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
2. Prosecution case is that on 21.1.2009, the forest officials of Rajampara Forest Station seized cooked meat of wild boar kept by A1 in his house bearing Door No.XI/231 of Seethathodu Grama Panchayath. Body parts of the carcass were also recovered from the said residential premises. It is the prosecution case that a wild boar was killed by blasting crackers in the property of A6 and thereafter its meat was derived and A1 Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 3 2024:KER:83587 to A9 shared the meat among them and cooked it for consumption. Accused thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 9 r/w Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
3. As per the final report, there were nine accused. Out of the nine accused, A1, A2, A4, A5, A6, A8 and A9 faced trial of which A4, A5, A6, A8 and A9 were found not guilty and acquitted by the learned Magistrate. A1 and 2 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 9 r/w Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
4. Assailing the conviction and sentence, though A1 and A2 preferred appeal as Crl.A.No.43/2015 before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence.
5. When this revision petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel who was appearing for the revision petitioners reported no instructions and accordingly, this Court issued notice Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 4 2024:KER:83587 to the revision petitioners and thereafter appointed Sri.Vivek Jose Puthukulangara as amicus curiae.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Accused challenge the conviction and sentence on the ground that prosecution rests its case on Exts.P6 and P7 confession statements allegedly given by A1 and A2 which are not admissible in evidence as it is not proved in accordance with law; that the remnants of the wild boar allegedly seized were not sent for forensic analysis; that the sample of the cooked meat allegedly seized was not properly sealed and labelled as required under law and it was not produced before the court and therefore no credibility can be given to the prosecution case that the accused killed a wild boar and cooked its meat for consumption. It was further contended that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore A1 and A2 are entitled to acquittal.
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 5 2024:KER:83587 by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge. It was further contended that Exts.P6 and P7 confession statements given by the accused are voluntary and therefore admissible in evidence and the said confession statements would amply prove the guilt of the accused.
9. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 7 witnesses as PWs 1 to 7 and marked 9 documents as Exts.P1 to P9.
10. PWs 1 and 3 were the forest guards of Rajampara Forest Station. PW2 was the Forester. PW4 was the Deputy Ranger. PW5 was the Surgeon of Ranni Veterinary Poly Clinic. PW6 was the Forester of Ranni Forest Range. PW7 was the Forest Range Officer, Ranni.
11. The specific case of the prosecution is that on 21.1.2009, the forest officials of Rajampara Forest Station seized cooked meat of wild boar from the house bearing Door No.XI/231 of Seethathodu Grama Panchayath, wherein A1 was residing. According to PW1, on 21.1.2009 while he was on beat duty, upon receiving secret information as to the possession of wild boar meat kept by A1 in his residence at Ponganpara, when the forest Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 6 2024:KER:83587 officials reached there and enquired the matter, A1 produced the cooked meat of wild boar before the forest officials which had been kept in his kitchen. Upon further enquiry, A1 stated to the forest officials that three days prior to 21.1.2009, A3 Saji placed crackers in the property of A6 Kala Sudarsanan and on the next day morning, carcass of a wild boar was seen in the property of A6 and thereupon A1 along with A2 Vijesh removed the carcass to the property of A1 and they cut it and derived its meat and they shared the meat with other accused. According to PW1, the cooked meat handed over by A1 to the forest officials was seized as per Ext.P1 mahazar. The knife and machete used for cutting the wild boar were also seized as per Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. A1 was produced before the Deputy Ranger of Forest. Subsequently, A1 was taken to the property of A6 Kala Sudarsanan, wherein the wild boar was killed and also to the property of A1, wherein the carcass of the wild boar was cut into pieces for deriving the meat. According to PW1, pursuant to the disclosure made by A1, the haired skin of the wild boar, its head, legs and internal organs which had been buried in the property of A1 were seized as per Ext.P2 seizure mahazar. PW2 also testified that A1 who was Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 7 2024:KER:83587 produced before the Deputy Ranger was taken to the property of A6 Kala Sudarsanan, wherein the animal was killed. Subsequently, A1 was taken to his residential premises and pursuant to the disclosure statement of A1, the haired skin, head, legs and internal organs of the wild boar were recovered as per Ext.P2 seizure mahazar. According to PW2, Ext.P2 seizure mahazar was prepared in his handwriting. PW3 has also testified in the same line as that of PW2.
12. According to PW4, who was the then Deputy Ranger of Rajampara Forest Station, A1 Sasi was produced before him along with the meat seized from the house of A1. Accordingly, he prepared Form No.1 report. Ext.P3 is the said report. Thereafter, he took A1 to the spot, wherein the wild boar was killed and also took A1 to the site, wherein the carcass was cut into pieces. The haired skin of the wild boar and its head, legs and internal organs buried in the site were also recovered as per Ext.P2 seizure mahazar. He has further testified that the body parts of the carcass were taken to Govt. Poly Clinic, Ranni for expert opinion and prepared Ext.P4 mahazar.
13. PW5 who was the Surgeon of Ranny Veterinary Poly Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 8 2024:KER:83587 Clinic testified that on 22.1.2009 the forest officials had produced the meat of the wild boar and the remnants of the wild boar before her for species identification and she had collected samples from it. Ext.P5 is the report of Veterinary Surgeon.
14. According to PW6 who was the Forester of Ranni Forest Range, Exts.P6 and P7 confession statements given by A1 and A2 to the Divisional Forest Officer were recorded by him in his handwriting.
15. PW7 was the then Forest Range Officer, Ranni who conducted the investigation and laid final report before the court. Ext.P8 is the certificate issued from Mannuthi College of Forestry (Wild Life) in respect of the sample sent for analysis.
16. The learned Public Prosecutor heavily relied on Exts.P8 result of examination issued by the Associate Professor, Head of Wild Life (Forensic Unit) and contended that Ext.P8 proves that the meat seized from the house of A1 was that of a wild boar and therefore, the prosecution case that accused hunted wild boar and collected its meat for consumption stands established.
17. The learned amicus curiae, on the other hand, contended that there is absolutely no evidence to connect Ext.P8 Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 9 2024:KER:83587 report with A1 and A2. It was also contended that prosecution did not lend any evidence as to how the sample was drawn and there is no evidence to show that the sample was sealed and labelled as required under the law.
18. As per the prosecution case, when the forest officials reached the house of A1, he made a disclosure statement that a wild boar was killed by A3 by blasting crackers and A1 along with A2 Vijesh removed the carcass to the property of A1 and derived meat from it and they shared the meat with the other accused. According to the prosecution case, the forest officials recovered portions of the carcass which were buried in the property of A1 as per the disclosure statement made by A1. The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 gave Exts.P6 and P7 confession statements before the Divisional Forest Officer that they killed a wild boar, derived the meat from it, shared the meat and cooked it for consumption.
19. As per Section 50(8) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, a Divisional Forest Officer is a competent officer to record confession. A confession statement made before the competent officer under Section 50(8) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 is Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 10 2024:KER:83587 admissible in evidence and the embargo under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable to the said statement and it is an exception to the general rule that the confession made before the police officer during custody is inadmissible in evidence against the accused. A confession statement made to a competent forest official under Section 50(8) of the Wild Life Protection Act, is an extra-judicial confession. It has to be established that the confession statement was voluntary. If the confession statement is not voluntary, it has to be discarded. In the case at hand, the Divisional Forest Officers to whom A1 and A2 allegedly made Exts.P6 and P7 confession statements were not examined by the prosecution. Only the scribe in whose handwriting Exts.P6 and P7 were written was examined by the prosecution. Prosecution has no explanation at all as to why the Divisional Forest Officers to whom A1 and A2 allegedly made the confession statement were not examined. Exts.P6 and P7 confession statements have no evidentiary value without examining the forest officials to whom the said statements were allegedly made by A1 and A2. The prosecution case that A1 and A2 gave Ext.P6 and P7 confession Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 11 2024:KER:83587 statements to the Divisional Forest Officers cannot be acted upon and accepted.
20. Moreover, at the time of examining the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C, the contents of the confession statements were not put to the accused so as to enable them to offer their explanation. Thus, there is a serious lapse on the part of the learned Magistrate in not putting the contents of Exts.P6 and P7 to the accused, so as to enable them to offer their explanation.
21. The examination of the accused under Section 313 (1)
(b) is not an empty formality. In Premchand v. State of Maharastra (2023) 5 SCC 522) the Hon'ble Apex Court after extensively dealing with the object of Section 313 Cr.P.C and the rationale behind the requirement to comply with Section 313 Cr.P.C summarised as follows:
"a. section 313(1)(b), Cr. P.C. is a valuable safeguard in the trial process for the accused to establish his innocence;
b. section 313, which is intended to ensure a direct dialogue between the court and the accused, casts a mandatory duty on the court to question the accused generally on the case for the purpose of enabling him to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him;
Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 12 2024:KER:83587 c. when questioned, the accused may not admit his involvement at all and choose to flatly deny or outrightly repudiate whatever is put to him by the court;
d. the accused may even admit or own incriminating circumstances adduced against him to adopt legally recognized defences;
e. an accused can make a statement without fear of being cross-examined by the prosecution or the latter having any right to cross-examine him;
f. the explanations that an accused may furnish cannot be considered in isolation but has to be considered in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and, therefore, no conviction can be premised solely on the basis of the section 313 statement(s);
g. statements of the accused in course of examination under section 313, since not on oath, do not constitute evidence under section 3 of the Evidence Act, yet, the answers given are relevant for finding the truth and examining the veracity of the prosecution case;
h. statement(s) of the accused cannot be dissected to rely on the inculpatory part and ignore the exculpatory part and has/have to be read in the whole, inter alia, to test the authenticity of the exculpatory nature of admission; and i. if the accused takes a defence and proffers any alternate version of events or interpretation, the court has to carefully analyze and consider his statements;
j. any failure to consider the accused's explanation of incriminating circumstances, in a given case, may vitiate the trial and/or endanger the conviction."
22. Furthermore, it is also relevant to point out the Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 13 2024:KER:83587 discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. PW4 who was the Deputy Ranger of Rajampara in his evidence has not testified who seized the meat of the wild boar from the house of A1. Though PW4 would say that A1 Sasi was produced before him along with the seized meat, he has not testified who produced the accused and the seized meat before him. A perusal of the testimonies of PWs 1 to 4 and 7 would reveal that they have tendered the evidence before the court in a vague and slipshod manner in a serious offence of this nature. The Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 is an umbrella legislation in the country for wildlife crime enforcement for the wildlife in India. It is pertinent to note that in Ext.P3 Form No.1 report, there is no mention regarding the meat allegedly seized. In the description, quantity and value of the forest produce or other property seized, there is no mention regarding any meat or cooked meat. No evidence was adduced by the prosecution to show that seized meat or its sample was produced before the court. The name and rank of the officer who made the seizure are conspicuously absent in Form No.1 report namely Ext.P3.
23. A perusal of Ext.P1 mahazar would reveal that it does Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 14 2024:KER:83587 not state which forest staff effected seizure of the meat from the house of A1. Ext.P1 mahazar begins with the following sentence:
"2009-)൦ മ ണ ജനവര മ സ ഇരപതഒന തയത
രജ പറ ഫ റസ ഫസഷൻ സ ഫകൾ
തയ റ കന മഹസർ"
Ext.P2 mahazar starts with the following sentence:
"രണ യരത ഒൻപത മ ണ ജനവര മ സ ഇരപതഒന തയത ര ജ മ റ ഫ റസ ഫസഷൻ സ ഫകൾ തയ റ കന മഹസർ"
24. It is not discernible from Exts.P1, P2 that which staff prepared Exts.P1 and P2 mahazars.
25. The prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to show that the body parts of the carcass namely the haired skin, legs and internal organs were allegedly seized from the residential premises of A1 for analysis.
26. Likewise, no investigation was conducted by the investigating officer as to how the wild boar was hunted and which accused hunted it. No evidence was collected by the investigating officer as to how the wild animal was killed. Apart from relying on the confession statement allegedly given by A1 that the wild boar was killed by A3 by blasting crackers, no investigation was done by the forest officials with regard to the Crl.R.P.No.98 of 2018 15 2024:KER:83587 same.
27. On an analysis of the evidence tendered by the prosecution, which has been discussed above, I am of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the case against A1 and A2 beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence the accused are found not guilty and they are acquitted. Their bail bond stands discharged.
In the result, Crl.Revision Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA, JUDGE ab