Case Note & Summary
The State, through the Range Forest Officer, filed a Criminal Revision Application challenging the judgment and order dated 01/09/2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.36/2014. The Sessions Judge had set aside the order dated 27/03/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Sanguem in Criminal Case No.14/AOA/2013, by which the Magistrate had held that the confessional statement of the respondent (original accused no.1) recorded by a Deputy Range Forest Officer was admissible in evidence. The brief facts are that on 14/11/2010, the respondent was intercepted while driving a Tata Indica vehicle, and two plastic bags containing meat of a wild boar were recovered. Investigation revealed that the wild boar was hunted by the third accused, and a gun with three cartridges was recovered from his house. The respondent and two others were put on trial for offences under Sections 39(1)(d), 39(3)(a), 27, 52, and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. During the examination of PW2, an objection was raised that the confessional statement recorded by the Deputy Range Forest Officer was not admissible. The Magistrate overruled the objection, relying on Forest Range Officer v. Aboobacker and another (1989 Cri.L.J. SC 2038) and E. C. Richard v. Forest Range Officer (1957)2 Mh.L.J. 624. The respondent challenged this order before the Sessions Judge, who set it aside, holding that a Deputy Range Forest Officer is not a Forest Officer under Section 2(13A) of the Act and thus cannot record a confessional statement under Section 50(8). The State then filed the present revision. The High Court examined the definition of 'Forest Officer' under Section 2(13A) of the Act, which includes any person appointed by the State Government to carry out the purposes of the Act. The court noted that the Deputy Range Forest Officer is appointed under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and is a Forest Officer under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The court held that Section 50(8) of the Act empowers any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Range Forest Officer to record a confession, and such confession is admissible in evidence. The court further held that Section 50(8) is a special provision that overrides the general provisions of the Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, and restored the order of the Magistrate, holding that the confessional statement is admissible in evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Admissibility of Confessional Statement - Deputy Range Forest Officer as Forest Officer - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Sections 2(13A), 50(8) - The issue was whether a confessional statement recorded by a Deputy Range Forest Officer is admissible in evidence. The court held that a Deputy Range Forest Officer is a Forest Officer under Section 2(13A) of the Act and is empowered to record confessional statements under Section 50(8). Such statements are admissible in evidence and Section 50(8) is a special provision that overrides the general provisions of the Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a confessional statement recorded by a Deputy Range Forest Officer is admissible in evidence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dated 01/09/2014, and restored the order of the Magistrate dated 27/03/2014, holding that the confessional statement recorded by the Deputy Range Forest Officer is admissible in evidence.
Law Points
- Deputy Range Forest Officer is a Forest Officer under Section 2(13A) of Wild Life (Protection) Act
- 1972
- Confessional statement recorded under Section 50(8) is admissible in evidence
- Section 50(8) is a special provision overriding the general provisions of the Evidence Act and CrPC
