Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sajeevan Vs. State of Kerala

Sajeevan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 01, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1119150

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sajeevan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....- - - - - - - crl. m.c no. 6269 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated this the 01st day of january, 2014. order petitioners are the accused nos. 1 to 3 in o.r no. 7/99 of nelliampathy forest range. the offences alleged are punishable under sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of kerala forest act. the crl.m.c is filed seeking to quash annexure-a charge sheet and all proceedings in c.c no. 60/10 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court, alathur.2. there are 12 accused in the crime. accused nos. 10 to 12 were acquitted by the judicial first class magistrate court, alathur vide judgment dated 30.03.2007 in c.c no. 742/01. subsequently, the accused nos. 5, 7 and 8 faced the trial and were acquitted in c.c.no.191/07 on the file of the same court. it is submitted that out of the remaining accused, two of them are no more and one is in abroad. the learned magistrate decided the case on merits vide annexure-b and c judgments. the learned magistrate observes that he is unable to accept the version of complainant that p7 statement was given by a11 voluntarily and in the manner deposed by him and complainant's witnesses. it is stated that there is no evidence to prove the alleged commission of tresspass into the forest area and removal of rose wood timber by accused nos. crl. m.c no. 6269 of 2013 2 10 to 12. the statement of accused no.10 which inculpates the accused was not admitted in evidence. for these reasons, the court found that a10 to 12 are not guilty of the offences charged against them. in annexure-b judgment, the court observes that the accused except 10 to 12 are implicated as per confession of accused no.10. the learned magistrate found that the confession is not admissible in evidence. for the same reason, the learned magistrate in annexure-c judgment found that there no other source to proceed against accused nos. 5,7 and 8 and that confession of accused no.10 is not binding on accused nos. 5, 7 and 8. in the light of annexure-b and c.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE1T DAY OF JANUARY201411TH POUSHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 6269 of 2013 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

IN CC602010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT ALATHUR O.R. NO. 7/1998 OF NELLIAMPATHY FOREST RANGE OFFICE , PALAKKAD PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJEEVAN AGED33YEARS PARAMBIKKATTIL HOUSE, VALLAPPADI, PERAMBRAM KODAKARA, THRISSUR2 BIJU AGED35YEARS S/O.KURIAKOSE, ELEVANKUDI HOUSE, KAYARADI ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DIST3 DIXON AGED46YEARS S/O.ANTONEY,PAZHUMKARAM HOUSE, AMBALLUR MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DIST BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT/STATE: ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0101-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 6269 of 2013 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES ------------------------------------- A:- TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN OR NO790 OF NELLAMPATHY FOREST RANGE B:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DTD303/07 IN CC74201 JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALATHUR C:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

IN CC NO19107 DTD161/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALATHUR RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------- \\ TRUE COPY \\ PA TO JUDGE jm/ HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. M.C No. 6269 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 01st day of January, 2014. ORDER

Petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in O.R No. 7/99 of Nelliampathy Forest Range. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of Kerala Forest Act. The Crl.M.C is filed seeking to quash Annexure-A charge sheet and all proceedings in C.C No. 60/10 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur.

2. There are 12 accused in the crime. Accused Nos. 10 to 12 were acquitted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur vide judgment dated 30.03.2007 in C.C No. 742/01. Subsequently, the accused Nos. 5, 7 and 8 faced the trial and were acquitted in C.C.No.191/07 on the file of the same court. It is submitted that out of the remaining accused, two of them are no more and one is in abroad. The learned Magistrate decided the case on merits vide Annexure-B and C judgments. The learned Magistrate observes that he is unable to accept the version of complainant that P7 statement was given by A11 voluntarily and in the manner deposed by him and complainant's witnesses. It is stated that there is no evidence to prove the alleged commission of tresspass into the forest area and removal of Rose wood timber by accused Nos. Crl. M.C No. 6269 of 2013 2 10 to 12. The statement of accused No.10 which inculpates the accused was not admitted in evidence. For these reasons, the court found that A10 to 12 are not guilty of the offences charged against them. In Annexure-B judgment, the court observes that the accused except 10 to 12 are implicated as per confession of accused No.10. The learned Magistrate found that the confession is not admissible in evidence. For the same reason, the learned Magistrate in Annexure-C judgment found that there no other source to proceed against accused Nos. 5,7 and 8 and that confession of accused No.10 is not binding on accused Nos. 5, 7 and 8. In the light of Annexure-B and C judgment, the offences alleged against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Since the other accused were acquitted, for the very same set of reasons, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution against the petitioner. Accordingly, Crl.M.C is disposed of quashing Annexure-A charge sheet and all proceedings in C.C No. 60/10 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. lsn

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial