Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30725
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
NARAYANAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 96 2016
SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
A confession statement recorded by unauthorized officers is inadmissible, rendering convictions based on such evidence unsustainable.
Headnote:
Wildlife - Criminal Procedure - Cr.P.C. 397, 401; Wild Life (Protection) Act 50 - The court found that the conviction based solely on an inadmissible confession and insufficient evidence regarding the accused's ownership or access to the property led to the unsustainable conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was found with meat from a barking deer, but his conviction relied on a confession recorded by an unauthorized officer and lacked evidence proving he owned or resided in the house where the meat was found.
Issues: The key issues were the admissibility of the confession statement and the sufficiency of evidence linking the accused to the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The confession recorded by an unauthorized officer was inadmissible, and without sufficient proof of ownership or residency, the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the accused's guilt.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
O R D E R
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2023 This revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for convenience), challenging conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur in C.C.No.250/2006 dated 16.08.2011 and also in Crl.A.No. 463/2011 dated 07.01.2016 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Palakkad.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in the above case. The respondent herein is the State of Kerala.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under:
On the basis of information received by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mangalam Dam police station on 05.05.2006, meat of a barking deer was found from house No.7/19 of Kizhakkencherry Panchayat and subsequently, the remnants of the barking deer also was recovered from the premises of the house. Alleging that the accused herein killed the barking deer and used its meat, crime was registered alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 27(i)(e) of the Kerala Forest (Amendment Act), 1993 and Sections 9, 2 to 16, 50 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act , 1972.
5. The trial court took cognizance of the matter and proceeded with the trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 4 were examined, Exts.P1 to P9 and Mos 1 to 3 were marked. On completion of evidence, after hearing both sides, the trial court found that the accused is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act , 1972 and he was convicted and sentenced as under:
“the accused is sentenced to R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine SI for one month. He is entitled to set off for the period if any, he has undergone imprisonment during the investigation and trial.”
6. The accused filed appeal before the Sessions Court.
The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now the revision petitioner assails concurrent verdicts of conviction and sentence.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the trial court as well as the appellate court convicted and sentenced the accused/revision petitioner without support of any material and Ext.P9 confession statement alleged to have been given by the accused was made as the sole basis of conviction even though no supporting evidence to prove that the accused/revision petitioner was the person who killed and used the meat of barking deer was available. It is also pointed out that even though the meat and remnants of the barking deer were recovered allegedly from the house of the accused, no evidence was adduced to show that the house belonged to the accused or the accused is a person who had been residing in the said house during the relevant time of occurrence. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the conviction and sentence are unsustainable and therefore, the same would require interference at the hands of this Court by exercising the power of revision.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that taking exception apart from cases under IPC, cases involving forest offences, confession statement is admissible since the availability of direct evidence to prove the allegation is remote in Forest areas. Therefore, the confession statement can be the sole basis of conviction. The learned Public Prosecutor also argued that apart from the confession statement, in the present case, PW1 recovered the remnants of the barking deer and meat from the premises of the house, supporting the confession. Therefore, the conviction and sentence are perfectly justified and in such view of the matter, the conviction and sentence need not be interfered with.
9. Insofar as the admissibility of confession statement recorded by Officers other than the Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation and Assistant Conservator of Forests
