In cases of forest offences, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused when there are genuine doubts regarding the truth of the prosecution case.

ORDER

The revision petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in C.C No. 54/2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.1, Thodupuzha. On the allegation that at about 4.30 p.m on 1.3.1999 the revision petitioners and the second accused trespassed into the Government Reserve Forest at Thodupuzha and tried to remove logs of teak, they faced prosecution under Sections 27 (1) (e) (iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. During the proceedings the second accused absconded. These three revision petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them by the learned Magistrate. Believing the evidence given by the forest officials the learned Magistrate convicted them. On conviction that they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each, and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Sections 27 (1) (e) (iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act.

2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the three revision petitioners approached the court of Session, Thodupuzha with Crl. A 37/2003 and 62/2003. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed this two Crl. Appeals. Now they are before this court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

3. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records including the detection mahazar which is the basic document I find that the whole prosecution case is tainted with serious doubts, the benefit of which must go to the accused. Of course there is no independent witness, and such evidence is not possible also in forest offences. When such evidence is not possible, it is always safe and appropriate to arrest the accused on the spot in the Forest. But in this case the accused were admittedly not arrested on the spot. The case of the prosecution is that the four accused were found carrying wooden logs. The offence was detected by the forest guards on duty in the forest. Their evidence is that on seeing the accused persons carrying wooden logs through the forest they intercepted them after well identifying them by concealing themselves in the forest, and they seized the logs from the possession of accused. When interrogated by them the accused gave some information leading to the detention of the teak trees cut from the forest, and on inspection the forest guards found teak stumps. Anyway the forest guards did not feel it necessary to arrest the accused on the spot. However, they claim, that they obtained the signature of the four accused in the detection mahazar, and reported the detection to the Range Officer. On getting report through mahazar the Forest Range Officer registered the Ext. P3 OR, but it reached in court only on 5.3.1999. The said delay stands not explained.

4. Of course it is seen that PW1 and PW2 have given evidence regarding the detection made by them. Their case is that all the four accused were seen in the government forest, and the four logs of wood were seized as per mahazar. But the mahazar does not contain any explanation for not arresting the accused on the spot. The two witnesses claim that the signature of each accused was obtained in the mahazar. But none of the witnesses specifically identified the signatures in court during trial.

5. In a case like this where arrest is not made on the spot, the detecting officers will have to explain why arrest was not made, and in cases where the detecting officer obtained signature of the accused in the mahazar, they will have to properly identify the signature during trial. When such identification evidence is not there it would be in appropriate for the court to compare the signature on its own. The witnesses who detected the offence must have a definite case in evidence, identifying the signature of the accused, and they must also tell the court, why the accused were not arrested on the spot. In this case the Ext. P1 detection mahazar or the evidence given by the material witnesses does not contain an