Kerala High Court
Anilkumar vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 58 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN CRL.APPL.NO.2 OF 2014 OF II
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II, KOLLAM ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.231 OF 2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
ANILKUMAR
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.VIJAYAN, VAYALIL VEEDU, ADNOOR PACHA, EDAMON
VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. ARAVIND.V.MATHEW (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.58 of 2016
2
2025:KER:63144
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
......................................
Crl.R.P.No.58 of 2016
..............................................................
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and
sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Sections
27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.
2. The revision petitioner is the 4 th accused in OR No.4 of
2006 of the Forest Range Office, Thenmala, for alleged to have
committed the offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and
27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. He stood trial for
committing the afore offences in CC No.231 of 2010, before the
Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Forest Offences), Punalur.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, four in
number, trespassed into the reserved forest in Edamon Section,
Aryankavu, in the Thenmala Range and unauthorisedly felled and
removed twelve teak trees, five days prior to 15.02.2006. It is
alleged on 03.03.2006, the accused were found slicing these trees
and making firewood. It is also alleged that due to the afore illegal
act, the Government has sustained a loss of Rs.5,000/-.
4. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution, PW1
2025:KER:63144
to PW6 were examined, and Ext. P1 to P9 documents, MO1, and
MO2 were marked. When the 4th accused was examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating circumstances
appearing against him in evidence and contended that he is
innocent. From the side of the 4 th accused, no evidence was
adduced. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on
record, found the 4th accused guilty of committing the offences
punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the
Kerala Forest Act and convicted him thereunder. He was sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, both
with a default clause.
5. The 4th accused carried the matter in appeal by filing
Crl.A.No.2 of 2014 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kollam.
The said court, by judgment dated 31.10.2015, dismissed the
appeal.
6. Heard Sri. A. Mohammed, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and Sri. Aravind V. Mathew, the learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the records.
2025:KER:63144
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court did not
appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at
a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He submitted that
the prosecution is mainly relying upon the Ext.P7 confession to
substantiate its case against the 4th accused and that it is not
recorded by an officer authorised under Section 72 of the Kerala
Forest Act. He argued that the 313 examination conducted was a
farce and the incriminating circumstances relied upon by the both
courts including the confession, have not been put to the revision
petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the said act of the
trial court has caused considerable prejudice to the 4 th accused. He
further submitted that the prosecution has not proved that the
area from which the trees were allegedly cut is a part of reserve
forest and also that there is no evidence to show that the timber
and firewood seized, relate to the trees which have been allegedly
cut from the forest area.
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the
impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to
interfere with the same. He argued that the evidence of PW1 to
PW3 coupled with Exts.P1 and P2 would show that they had found
2025:KER:63144
twelve teak trees cut and removed from the reserve forest and that
on 03.03.2006, the accused, were found handling the same. He
argued that the prosecution case is also supported by the Ext.P7
confession given by the 4 th accused, and the sword and axe used
for felling the trees have been seized on the basis of the confession
statement of the accused in this case. He further submitted that as
per Ext. P9, the area from which the trees have been felled is a
reserve forest. He contended that the confession statement has
been recorded only by a competent officer and therefore, there is
no bar in relying upon the same.
9. In the instant case, the prime contention raised by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the Ext.P7
confession is not valid in law since, it is recorded by a Forest
Range Officer, who is below the rank of an Assistant Conservator
of Forests. The materials on record, show that Ext.P7 confession of
the revision petitioner, is recorded by PW3, a Forest Guard, in the
presence of PW6, a range officer. This court had the occasion to
consider a similar issue recently, in the decisions in Sreekumar v.
State of Kerala [Bail Appl. No. 11520 of 2023 dated 23.02.2024] and
H.A. Siddiq and another v. State of Kerala [Bail Appl. No. 1744 of
2024 dated 27.03.2024]. In these decisions, this court, after
2025:KER:63144
considering the relevant provisions, including Section 72 of the
Forest Act, categorically held that no officer below the rank of an
Assistant Conservator of Forest has the power to do any act
prescribed under Section 72 of the Forest Act, including the
recording of confession. It was also held that any confession
recorded by any other officer other than the aforementioned
officer is a nullity and has no sanctity in the eyes of the law. If so,
in the light of the aforementioned dictum, I have no hesitation to
find that Ext. P7 confession recorded by PW6, a Range Officer is
null and void and has no sanctity in the eyes of law.
10. Moving further, a perusal of 313 examination of the 4 th
accused would go to show that the same has been done in a
perfunctory manner and that many of the incriminating
circumstances brought out in evidence and which have been relied
upon, has not been put to him, and his explanation sought for. It
shows that nothing has been asked about the incident which took
place on 03.03.2006, the content of the alleged confession given by
him, etc. On the other hand, the questions asked are in such a
manner that the witnesses have seen the accused felling the trees.
It is a settled law, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asraf Ali v.
State of Assam [2008 KHC 5081] and Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State
2025:KER:63144
(NCT of Delhi) [2023 KHC 6560], that circumstances about which
the accused was not asked to explain cannot be used against him
and that each circumstance appearing in evidence against the
accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and
separately. If so, I am of the view that in the instant case, the
failure on the part of the trial court, has caused substantial
prejudice to the 4th accused in defending his case.
11. Be that as it may, it is also very pertinent to note that
the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the
articles seized on 03.03.2006, i.e., the timber and the firewood
relate to the trees allegedly cut from the reserve forest. Mere
satisfaction of the prosecution agency, will not suffice and they are
duty bound to prove the afore fact before the court. That apart, it
is to be seen that none of the prosecution witnesses, including PW1
to PW3 and PW6, have identified the 4 th accused during trial. Even
though these witnesses have stated that they have previous
acquaintance with the 4th accused, they have not identified him in
dock. It is to be kept in mind that substantive evidence of
identification, is the identification of the accused in the dock and
failure to identify each and every accused is fatal to the
prosecution.
2025:KER:63144
12. The upshot of the afore discussions is that both the trial
court and appellate court have not appreciated the evidence in a
correct perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt
against the 4th accused. This in turn means that the conviction and
sentence rendered against the revision petitioner/4 th accused
cannot be sustained.
Ergo, this Crl.R.P. is allowed and the conviction and sentence
passed against the revision petitioner/4 th accused under Section
27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, in CC No.231
of 2010 by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Forest
Offences), Punalur, and as confirmed in Crl.Appl.No.2 of 2014 by
the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kollam, are set aside, and the
revision petitioner/4th accused is set at liberty.
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Dxy
