The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence, including the confession statement, to prove the petitioner's involvement in the offense under the Kerala Forest Act.

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the concurrent verdict of conviction recorded against him by the courts below for offences under section 27(1)(e)(iii)(iv) of Kerala Forest Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.5,000/- as fine and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. Here is the gist of the prosecution case:

On 08.09.2006 PWs 1 and 2, the forest Guards were on beat duty in the reserve forest at Mandakole, falling within Forest Range, Kasargod. That particular forest area was known as Kattikaje. Along the boundary of that forest solar power (electricity) wires were put up. Far inside that forest one sandal wood tree was seen felled. PWs 1 and 2 inspected the same. A few metres away another tree was also seen felled. They inspected it. And another place also, a few metres away, one more sandal wood tree was seen felled. The height and girth of the remaining stumps and of the cut sandal wood trees were mentioned in Exhibit P1 seizure mahazar. The length, girth and circumference of the cut pieces found near those stumps were also mentioned in Exhibit P1 Mahazar. Another sandal wood tree was also seen cut and felled. The length and girth of all those sandal wood pieces seen near the cut stumps were specifically noted in Exhibit P1 mahazar. PWs 1 and 2 could see the accused a few metres away scrapping and removing the barks of the sandalwood trees. The saps and chips were found at the place where the accused was scrapping and removing the barks. It appears in one of the trees the pith of the sandal wood was not there and it was left at the very same place where it was cut. The pieces of other trees contained pith of the sandalwood.

3. It was mentioned in Exhibit P1 that because the chips were found to be useless those chips were not taken into custody. It was also stated that the axe and saw were also taken into custody. It is true that those properties were not marked in evidence. All the sandal wood logs were seized as per Exhibit P1 mahazar, prepared then and there. The signatures of the accused was obtained on Exhibit P1. It was stated that since the incident took place far inside the forest there was no independent witness so no independent witness could be procured by the forest guards. Since they thought that the accused will escape, he was arrested and produced before the Forest Range Office. On the next day itself the Forester inspected the scene of occurrence and found the facts mentioned as correct, as noted in Exhibit P1 seizure mahazar.

4. Much was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence to show that the area where from the sandal wood trees were cut and where the cut pieces of sandalwood were seen felled, falls within the reserve forest. This contention is stoutly resisted by the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest). There was absolutely no case for the accused before the trial court that the scene of occurrence where the trees were felled and cut into pieces was not part of the reserve forest. When question was put to him that the scene of occurrence as mentioned in Exhibit P1, was part of Mandakole reserve forest and that it is covered by Exhibit P2 notification in respect of which evidence was given by PW1, the petitioner only feigned ignorance. When the accused was asked to state anything abut the case, he only stated that he was taken to the Forest Office and that he did not take or remove sandal wood. There was absolutely no case for him that the area in question was not a reserve forest nor was there any case for him that the felled sandalwood trees of which the barks were being chipped off by him belonged to him or that he was doing it within his property, or at any rate beyond the reserve forest. Whether the scene of occurrence is part of a reserve forest is actually a question of fact. There was no denial of that fact. Moreover this plea was not specifically raised before the two courts below.

5. It was