IMPORTANT POINT
The finding in the former trial on the issue of possession of the revolver will constitute an estoppel against the prosecution, not as a bar to the trial and conviction of the appellant for a different offence but as precluding the reception of evidence to disturb the finding of fact.

ORDER :

The question presented for determination in this Criminal Revision Petition is whether the reception of evidence to prove an identical fact, which has been the subject matter of an earlier finding between the same parties, has been excluded on the ground that it was part of the evidence given for the prosecution at the former trial, at which the accused were charged.

2. The revision petitioners 1 and 2 were the appellants 1 and 2 respectively in Crl.A.No. 299/2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (ADHOC-II), Thodupuzha and the accused in C.C.No.784/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana. Both the revision petitioners were chargesheeted by the Assistant Wild Life Warden, Idukki Wild Life Sanctuary in O.R.No. 1/2001 on the allegation of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 9(2), 27(1), 29(1) and 31 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Wild Life Act').

3. The prosecution case unfolded during the trial of the case is as hereunder:-

Idukki Wild Life Sanctuary is a reserve forest within the natural habitat that has high degree of protection from any kind of hunting and poaching. On 15.4.2001, early in the morning at 2.30 a.m., both the accused trespassed into Idukki Wild Life Sanctuary and hunted down a barking deer or muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak), which is a special animal shown in Schedule III of the Wild Life Act as Item No.2 near Vagavanam Watch Tower in Kizhukanam Section of Idukki Wild Life Sanctuary. The first accused was found in possession of a gun and the second accused was found in possession of the carcass of the barking deer without requisite permit under the Wild Life Act and thereby, both of them have committed the offences punishable under Sections 9(2), 27(1), 29(1) and 31 of the Wild Life Act.

4. A complaint was filed by the Assistant Wild Life Warden, Idukki before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Peermade alleging the aforesaid offences against accused 1 and 2. After completing all the legal formalities, the case was registered as C.C.No.158/2002. Later the case was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana and re-registered as C.C.No.784/2002.

5. On the appearance of the accused, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P7. On finding sufficient grounds to frame the charge, the learned Magistrate framed the charges under Sections 9(2), 27(1), 29(1) and 31 of the Wild Life Act against the accused. Later, after having heard both sides, the charge was amended for the offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, Sections 9, 27(1), 29 and 31 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life Act. The charge was read over to which the accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty.

6. During the trial of the case, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P7 on prosecution side. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, they were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

7. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of evidence mainly under six points, found the accused 1 and 2 guilty and convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each for the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. For each of the offence under Sections 9, 27(1),29 and 31 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life Act, both the accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1250/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each more. The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Set off was allowed under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, both the accused preferred Crl.A.No.299/2010 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha and the learned Sessions Ju