Conviction under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act upheld due to strong prosecution evidence despite acquittal of co-accused, with sentence modified to reflect time already served.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed with a prayer to set aside the judgment, dated 30.07.2024 passed in C.A.No.74 of 2021 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur modifying the judgment of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Sandal Wood cases), Tirupattur, dated 25.10.2021 in C.C.No.4 of 2017. By the said judgment, the Trial Court had found the petitioner/first accused guilty of the offences under Sections 36-A and 36-E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act , 1882 and sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-

and in default, to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.10.2016, early morning, at about 2.30 A.M, while the Jeep Driver, P.W.3, belonging to Tirupattur Forest Division, was sleeping inside his house, he suddenly heard the thud of the tree being cut and therefore, he immediately woke up and when he wanted to come out, his door was bolted from outside. Therefore, through his mobile phone, he called the other officials, who all came immediately and opened the door and thereafter, when they went to the spot, they found that sandalwood tree, which was inside the campus was cut into pieces. On further search, totally five accused started running away and four of them escaped in two wheelers and the petitioner/first accused, Ravichandran, tried to run upto the bus stand where he was caught. From him, in a bag, tools such as an old saw was recovered. He confessed about the persons involved in the crime and also stated that they have cut the sandalwood tree into twelve pieces, of which, one piece has been taken away by two of the accused.

3. Thereafter, investigation was completed and prosecution was launched against all the five accused. Upon appearance and issue of copies and questioning, the accused denied the allegations and stood trial. In order to bring home charges, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined by the prosecution and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 were marked. Upon being questioned about the material evidence on record under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same was denied as false. Thereafter, no defence evidence was let in. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, held that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations as against the accused Nos.2 to 5 and acquitted them. As far as the petitioner/first accused, since he was caught red-handed by P.W.1 and also the tools, which were carried by him in his bag, was recovered and the recovery mahazar being marked as Ex.P-3 found the petitioner/first accused alone guilty of the offences under Sections

36-A and 36-E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act , 1882 and sentenced as above.

4. Mr.Periaswamy I, learned Counsel for the petitioner/first accused would submit that the petitioner/first accused was a coolie and was working as a Watchman and was wrongfully implicated in this case as the forest officials were unable to apprehend anybody with reference to cutting of the sandalwood inside their campus. They could not recover one piece of wood which is said to have been stolen by the other accused. The very fact that all the four accused were acquitted itself prove the falsity of the case of the prosecution. Alternatively, the learned Counsel would also submit that the petitioner/first accused has no previous cases and he is not involved in any other case. He has been facing this case since the year 2017. He has undergone incarceration at the time of investigation and also after dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, he would also make an argument