Conviction supported by evidence recovered from premises, regardless of ownership claims.

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam and the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in C.C No.186/2002 and Crl.A.No.102/2006 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under section 9 r/w Section 51 (1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 are under challenge in this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner herein, along with five other accused, shot dead a wild calf elephant and removed its tusks. The crime was registered on 17.09.2000 and the autopsy of the carcass was conducted on 18.09.2000. Later on, the accused were arrested and the tusks of the elephant were recovered from the premises of the house of the petitioner (first accused). The gun used for shooting the elephant, and the equipments used for the removal of the tusks from the head of the elephant were also recovered from the house and premises of the petitioner (first accused). Accordingly, the Forest Range Officer, Munnar filed the final report against the petitioner and five other accused.

3. The 4th accused expired during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court. Since accused Nos.2 and 6 absconded, the case against them was split up by the learned magistrate. Thus, accused Nos.1 , 3 and 5 alone faced the trial.

4. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and marked 13 documents as Exts.P1 to P13. Five Material Objects were identified as MO1 to MO5. From the part of the accused, one document was marked Ext.D1. It is, after evaluating the aforesaid evidence and hearing both sides, that the learned magistrate found the first accused (petitioner herein) guilty of the commission of offence under section 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. Accused Nos.3 and 5 were found not guilty and acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The learned magistrate imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.3,000/- for the offence committed by the petitioner.

5. The Appellate Court made a re-appraisal of the entire evidence and concurred with the findings of the learned magistrate. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded upon the petitioner were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

7. The ground urged by the petitioner seeking interference of this Court upon the concurrent findings of the courts below is that there had been erroneous acceptance of the confession evidence by the trial court and the appellate court which resulted in travesty of justice. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 50(8) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act makes it clear that only officers not below the rank of Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the Government were empowered to record the confession of the accused. Thus, it is pointed out that the conviction and sentence awarded by the courts below by relying on the confession recorded by the Forest Range Officer, are in blatant violation of law. For the above reason, the conviction and sentence awarded upon the petitioner are sought to be set aside.

8. There are conflicting verdicts of this Court regarding the acceptability of the confession recorded by a Forest Officer below the rank of Assistant Director of Wildlife Preservation and Assist