Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
MANU.V.M. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Key Points: - Confession statements recorded by unauthorized officers under the Forest Act are deemed inadmissible and lack legal effect (!) (!) (!) . - Only officers not below the rank of Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Assistant Conservator of Forests authorized by the State Government can record evidence or confessions (!) (!) (!) . - A confession recorded by an officer below the specified rank is a nullity and has no sanctity in the eyes of the law (!) (!) . - The court held that the investigation and recording of confession by a Forest Ranger was without authority invested by the Act and therefore illegal (!) . - The petitioners were granted pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. due to the lack of incriminating evidence and the inadmissibility of the confession (!) (!) . - Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions including surrender within 10 days, execution of a bond with sureties, and restrictions on tampering with evidence (!) (!) (!) . - The prosecution case relied solely on the confession of the 1st accused, who was apprehended while fleeing, with no other direct evidence against the petitioners (!) (!) . - The court observed that the ground for registering the crime was illegal trespass, not theft of articles from forest land (!) .
ORDER
Dated this the 05th day of Sepetember, 2024 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 2 and 3 in O.R.No.01/2024 of the Pariyaram Forest Range Office, Thrissur, which is registered against them for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 27(i) (e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act , 1961 (in short, ‘Act’).
3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 10.06.2024, the Section Forest Officer of the Forest Station found three persons coming out from the Ithanoli Colony area, and when he attempted to intercept the three persons, two persons fled away from the scene and only the 1st accused was apprehended. In the interrogation of the 1st accused, he has stated that it was the accused 2 and 3 who are with him. Subsequently, the accused 2 and 3 were also arrested.
Thus, the accused have committed the above offence.
4. Heard; Sri.T.K.Sandeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seetha S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations lev
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
