Admissibility of confession statements recorded by specific authorized officers under the Wild Life Protection Act,1972.

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

2. The petitioner is the fifth accused in O.R No.12/2023 of the Kulathupuzha Forest Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (nine in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 2(11),2(16), 2(36), 2(37), 9, 39, 48A, 50, 51 and 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,1972 (in short, ‘Act’).

3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 3.12.2023, the officials of the Ezhamkulam Forest Station received information that the first accused was in possession of the meat of Bengal Monitor, an animal included in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. During the interrogation of the first BAIL APPL. NO. 235 2022 accused, he confessed that the other accused including the petitioner are also involved in the above crime.

Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.Nirmal V.Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri, Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

5. Sri.Nirmal V.Nair strenuously argued that the petitioner has 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 petitioner 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 235 2022 confession recorded by a Forest Officer cannot be used in evidence. According to him, the whole case set up by the prosecution, against the petitioner, 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 petitioner is the law abiding citizen and has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. He is 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 fifth accused was implicated on the basis of the confession made by the first accused and consequently he was arrested. Therefore, the petitioner has been implicated, on the alleged confession made by the first accused.

8. Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, reads BAIL APPL. NO. 235 2022 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