Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6428
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
UNNI @ P.G. SREEKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 7317/2022
The admissibility of confession statements recorded by officers under Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act and the requirement for such statements to be recorded by authorized officers.
Headnote:
Section 438 - Wild Life Protection Act - The court allowed the bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, based on the interpretation of Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act and previous case law. The accused were implicated based on a confession made by the first accused, but the court found that the confession was recorded by an officer not empowered to do so under the Act, rendering it inadmissible. The court imposed stringent conditions for bail.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were implicated in a case under the Wild Life Protection Act for allegedly hunting and killing a wild bear. The prosecution's case relied on the confession of the first accused, implicating the other accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confession recorded by an officer not empowered under the Act was inadmissible, and there were no other incriminating materials to establish the involvement of the petitioners in the crime. The court allowed the bail application but imposed stringent conditions.
Issues: The admissibility of the confession statement recorded by an officer under Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act and the involvement of the accused in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The confession recorded by an officer not empowered under the Act is inadmissible, and any officer below the rank specified in Section 50(8) does not have the power to record such a confession.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application subject to stringent conditions, including surrendering before the Investigating Officer, cooperating with the investigation, and not intimidating witnesses or interfering with the investigation.
O R D E R
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 Nos. 2 and 3 in O.R No.4/2022 of the Poongode Forest Range, Thrissur, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 2(2) (16) (20) (35) (36), 9 39(1)(b)(d) 50 and 51 (1) of the Wild Life Protection Act. (in short, ‘Act’).
3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the first accused along with other persons had hunted and killed a wild bear. During the interrogation of the first accused, he confessed that the accused Nos.2 and 3 are also involved in the crime. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
4. Heard; Smt.Sruthy.N.Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri, Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
5. Smt.SruthyN.Bhat strenuously argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime. Other than for the alleged confession statement of the first accused there is nothing on record to connect the petitioners with the crime. The so called confession statement is 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 50 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 first 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.
7. The accused Nos.2 and 3 were implicated on the basis of the confession made by the first accused and consequently they were arrested. Therefore, the petitioners have been implicated, on the alleged confession made by the first accused.
8. Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, reads as follows:-
50. Power of entry, search, arrest and detention.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf 1 [or the Management Authority or any officer authorised by the Management Authority] or the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer or any forest officer or any police officer not below the rank of a sub- inspector 2 [or any customs officer not below the rank of an inspector or any officer of the coast guard not below the rank of an Assistant Commandant], may, if he has reasonable grounds for believing that any person has committed an offence against this Act,—
(a) require any such person to produce for inspection any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, meat, trophy or 3 [trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant or part or derivative thereof [or scheduled specimen]] in his control, custody or possession, or any licence, permit or other document granted to him or required to be kept by him under the provisions of this Act;
(b) stop any vehicle or vessel in order to conduct search or inquiry or enter upon and search any premises, land, vehicle or vessel, in the occupation of such person, and open and search any baggage or other things in his possession;
(c) seize any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, meat, trophy or uncured trophy, or any specified plant or part or derivative thereof 1 [or scheduled specimen], i
