Confessions recorded by unauthorized officers under the Forest Act are inadmissible, impacting the validity of prosecutions based solely on such statements.

ORDER

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

2. The petitioner is the 4^th accused in Crime No.307/2024 of the Kuruppampady Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against four accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 25 (I-B)(b) and 3 of the Arms Act , 1959.

3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 30.03.2024, at around 15:05 hours, the accused 1 to 3 had entered into Government reserve forest area with a country made fire arm and killed a Rusa Unicolor (Sambar deer) and collected its meat. On the basis of the confession statement made by the 1^st accused, it was unveiled that the fire arm was given to him by the 4^th accused about ten years back. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.Ajeesh M.Ummer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime on the basis of the alleged confession statement of the 1^st accused. The said confession statement is inadmissible in evidence in view of the law laid down by this Court inLuca 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]. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen without any criminal antecedents. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that a sambar deer was killed by accused 1 to 3 using a fire arm supplied by the petitioner. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

7. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused 1 to 3 had used a fire arm and killed a samba deer. The fire arm originally belonged to the petitioner, who gave it to the 1^st accused about ten years back.

8. On an appreciation of the materials on record, prima facie it is evident that the only material to link the petitioner with the crime is the alleged confession statement made by the 1^st accused.

9. Section 72 of the Kerala Forest Act , 1961 reads as follows:-

“ 72. Investing Forest Officers with powers. - The Government may invest any Forest Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservation of Forests with all or any of the following powers, and may withdraw the same:-

(a) power to enter upon any land and to survey, demarcate and make a map of the same ,

(b) powers of a Forest Settlement Officer;

(c) powers of a Civil Court to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents ;

(d) power to hold inquiries into forest offences and, in the course of such inquiries, to receive and record evidence and to issue search warrants which may be executed in the manner provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1898;

(e) power to accept compensation for forest offences under section 68 of this Act Any Evidence Recorded Under Clause (D) Of This Section Shall Be Admissible In Any Subsequent Trial Of The Alleged Offender Before A Magistrate ; Provided That it Has Been Taken In The Presence Of The Accused Person And recorded In The Manner Provided By The Code Of Criminal