Confession recorded by a Forest Officer below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests is inadmissible in evidence, and any evidence collected by such officers is illegal and devoid of basis.

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioners are the accused 6 to 9 in Crime No.8/2023 of the Mupliyam Forest Station in Vellikulangara Forest Range in Chalakkudy Division, Thrissur District, registered against the accused (nine in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 27 (1) e (iii) (iv) and 47A, B, C, D, G, H of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’).

3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: some of the accused had trespassed into the Areswaram area of the Kodassery notified Reserve Forest and by using tools had illegally felled, converted and removed three sandal trees with vehicles, and caused a loss of Rs.6000/- to the exchequer. The Mupliyam Forest Station filed Form I report before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 14.8.2023. The investigation has revealed that it was the 3rd accused and other persons who committed the crime. The 4th accused had transported the sandalwood and gave it to the accused 6 to 9. The confession statements of the 4th accused reveals that the accused 6 to 9 had pre-planned the crime. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri. Babu S. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri, Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

5. Sri. Babu S Nair strenuously argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime.

Other than for the alleged confession statement of the 4th accused there is nothing on record to connect the petitioners with the crime. The so called confession statements are inadmissible in evidence, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Luca Beltrami and Others v. State of Kerala, [2020 (4) KHC 603], Prakashan v. State of Kerala [2023 (1) KHC 536] and Gopi v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC 18]. He also relied on the provisions under Section 72 of the Act, Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and Section 25(3) of the Evidence Act, to fortify his contention that a confession recorded by a Forest Officer cannot be used in evidence.

According to him, the whole case set up by the prosecution, against the petitioners, based on the alleged confession of the 4th accused is a nullity as held by this Court in Prakasan’s case. He further contended that the petitioners are the law abiding citizens and have no criminal antecedents. The petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. They are also willing to co-operate with the investigation.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has also filed a bail objection report. The learned Special Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Badku Joti Savant v State of Mysore [ AIR 1966 SC 1746] Moti Lal v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2001 KHC 2250] and the decisions of this Court in Forest Range Officer v. Aboobacker[1989 KHC 201] and Kunhali and others v. Forest Range Officer and another [2012 KHC 231], to canvass the position that the confession recorded by the forest officer is admissible in evidence. He contended that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is untenable. In addition to the above contention, he also submitted that there are other incriminating materials, including the pictures recovered from the mobile phone of the 4th accused, with the pictures of the farm house of the 6th accused. The investigation has also revealed that the accused have jointly travelled in a car and passed through the Paliyekkara Toll Plaza in Thrissur District. He submitted that the accused 6 and 7 have criminal antecedents. The petitioners custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is t