Eyewitness identification in court is essential for establishing guilt; absence of such undermines the prosecution’s case resulting in acquittal.

JUDGMENT

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.

127/2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Forest Offences), Punalur. He stood trial for committing the offences punishable under Section 2 7(1)(d) and 27(1)(e)(iv) & (v) of the Kerala Forest Act and (2) of the Forest (Conservation) Act , 1980, and was convicted and sentenced thereunder. The accused challenged the afore conviction and sentence by filing Crl.A. No. 247/2010 before the Sessions Court, Kollam. The Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) II, Kollam, as per judgment dated 19.08.2013, dismissed the appeal.

2. The prosecution case is that on 16.01.2008 at about 3p.m., the accused trespassed into Ayiranalloor Reserve Forest and collected river sand from the Kallada River at Arupathuparakkadavu, causing a loss of Rs.350/- to the Government.

3. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW3 were examined, and Exts. P1 to P4 documents and MO1 were marked. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence and contended that he is innocent. Even though an opportunity was granted to adduce evidence, no evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of committing the offences punishable under Section 2 7(1)(d), 27(1)(e)(iv) and 27(1)(e)(v) of the Kerala Forest Act and (2) of the Forest (Conservation) Act , 1980. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under 7(1)(d), simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under 7(1)(e)(iv) and simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under 7(1)(e)(v), all with a default clause. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days under (2) of the . As stated earlier, the appeal preferred by the accused as Crl. A. No.247/2010 ended in dismissal from the hands of the Appellate Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court have not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He submitted that apart from the evidence of PW1, no other witnesses have been examined to prove the offence, and the reliance placed upon the alleged Ext.P3 confession statement is illegal. He argued that Ext.P3 confession statement is recorded by a Forest Range OfÏcer, and as per Section 72 of the Forest Act, the statement recorded by him cannot be used for any other purpose. He further submitted that PW1 has not properly identified the accused and the sentences imposed by the courts below are disproportionate to the offences.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with them. He argued that the evidence of PW1 regarding the detection of the offence is credible and cogent and is also supported by Ext.P3, the confession given by the accused. She further submitted that the accused was not arrested since he was a known person in that area and he was arrested later, after summoning him to the ofÏce.

7. The prosecution case is that while PW1, along with one M. Rajesh (CW2), were conducting beat duty, they had found the accused collecting sand from the Kallada River in a rubber basket. Since CW2 Rajesh was not alive at t