Kerala High Court

Kunjeppu vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2024

                                 Object 1
                                        4
                                        3
                                        2




Crl. R.P. No. 632/2012                      :1



                                                                   2024:KER:74878


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN

          THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 18TH ASWINA, 1946

                          CRL.REV.PET NO. 632 OF 2012

          JUDGMENT DATED 04.02.2012              IN CRA NO.265 OF 2010 OF ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA
          JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.236 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS - I, IDUKKI

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

      1       KUNJEPPU
              S/O.VARGHESE, VAZHAPPANAL HOUSE, KEERIPLAVUBHAGAM,
              KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.

      2       SUDHEESH
              S/O.KUNJEPPU, VAZHAPPANAL HOUSE, KEERIPLAVUBHAGAM,
              KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.


              BY ADVS.
              N.K.SUBRAMANIAN
              ATHUL TOM(K/1424/2018)



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

              STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
              ERNAKULAM.


       SMT. MAYA M.N., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

       THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

07.10.2024, THE COURT ON 10.10.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl. R.P. No. 632/2012              :2



                                                            2024:KER:74878

                             JOHNSON JOHN, J.
            ---------------------------------------------------------
                          Crl. R.P. No.632 of 2012
             --------------------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 10th day of October, 2024.

                                   ORDER

The revision petitioners are the accused and they are challenging

the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in

Crl. Appeal No. 265 of 2010 upholding the verdict of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-I, Idukki in C.C. No. 236 of 2008, whereby the

petitioners are convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections

27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the kerala Forest Act.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused persons trespassed

into Keeriplavu reserve forest on 07.03.2008 and cut down a kambakam

tree and attempted to remove the same and thereby, caused a loss of

Rs.5000/- to the Government.

3. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed in

O.R. No. 16 of 2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Idukki and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.

4. In the trial court PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exhibits P1 to Crl. R.P. No. 632/2012 :3

2024:KER:74878

P3 and MO1 were marked from the side of the prosecution. No evidence

was adduced from the side of the defence.

5. After trial and hearing both sides, the trial court found the

accused persons guilty of the offences under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and

27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and they were convicted and

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a

fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo

simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section

27(1)(e)(iii); and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the

offence under Section 27 (1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act.

6. The petitioners filed appeal against the trial court judgment and

the appellate court, as per the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2012 in

Crl. Appeal No. 265 of 2010, confirmed the conviction and sentence

passed by the trial court against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the above

concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court, the petitioners

filed this revision petition inter alia contending that there is no

convincing evidence regarding the identity of the accused persons and

that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that

the place of occurrence is a reserve forest.

 Crl. R.P. No. 632/2012            :4



                                                         2024:KER:74878

7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the

learned Public Prosecutor.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the

evidence of PW1, forest guard, regarding the occurrence and the identity

of the accused persons is not at all reliable and that there is no

convincing evidence to show that the place of occurrence is within the

reserve forest covered under Exhibit P3 notification. It is pertinent to

note that the trial court and the appellate court found the evidence of

PW1 regarding the occurrence and identity of the accused persons

reliable and trustworthy.

9. PW2 is the Forester who verified the mahazar prepared by PW1

and PW3 forest Range Officer also produced Exhibit P3 notification to

show that the place of occurrence is a reserve forest covered by Exhibit

P3 notification.

10. It is well settled that the revisional court cannot act as an

appellate court and the power of the revisional court under Sections 397

to 401 Cr.P.C cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court. In

State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri Crl. R.P. No. 632/2012 :5

2024:KER:74878

[(1999) 2 SCC 452 = 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], the Honourable Supreme

Court held thus:

"5. ... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. ..."

11. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao

Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123 = (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19], the

Honourable Supreme Court held thus:

"14. ... Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-

 Crl. R.P. No. 632/2012                 :6



                                                                   2024:KER:74878

consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."

12. As noticed earlier, in the present case, the trial court and the

appellate court found that the evidence of PW1, forest guard who

witnessed the occurrence on 07.03.2008, is reliable and trustworthy.

Further, the prosecution has also produced Exhibit P3 notification to

show that the place of occurrence is a reserve forest. The revision

petitioners were not able to bring out anything to show that the

judgment under challenge is vitiated due to any illegality, irregularity or

error of law.

13. It is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of revisional

jurisdiction, shall not interfere with the impugned judgment, unless it is Crl. R.P. No. 632/2012 :7

2024:KER:74878

perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any