The court upheld the Magistrate's decision to frame charges based on the totality of evidence, including witness statements and confessions regarding wildlife violations.

O R D E R

The order dated 31.12.2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur, framing charges under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and Sections 9 , 50 and 51 of the Kerala Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 against accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C No.341/2006 of that Court, is under challenge in this revision petition filed by the aforesaid accused.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners, along with 24 other accused, trespassed into the Reserve Forest and killed a pregnant deer, and made use of its meat for consumption as food.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate held that the prosecution records prima facie disclosed the commission of the offence by the petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 3), but found that there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against the other accused. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the Forest Department.

5. In the impugned order, the learned Magistrate had observed that the act of accused Nos.1 to 3, driving away the deer from the forest and killing it in a rubber plantation, is clearly revealed from the statement of witnesses, and the other records including the confession statement of the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the confession statement given by the petitioners to the Forest Range Officer, is not admissible in evidence, and hence it has to be concluded that there were no sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted since it is seen from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate decided to frame charges against the petitioners, not merely on the basis of their confession statements, but after taking into account the overall evidence garnered by the investigating agency regarding the act of the petitioners, driving away a deer from the reserve forest and killing it for the purpose of making use of its meat for consumption as food. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is not liable to be interfered with, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. Needless to say, the prayer in this revision to set aside the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, cannot be allowed.

In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.

(sd/-)