ORDER The petitioner challenges the concurrent verdict of conviction recorded against him by the courts below for offences under section 27(1)(e)(iii)(iv) of Kerala Forest Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.5,000/- as fine and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Here is the gist of the prosecution case: On 08.09.2006 PWs 1 and 2, the forest Guards were on beat duty in the reserve forest at Mandakole, falling within Forest Range, Kasargod. That particular forest area was known as Kattikaje. Along the boundary of that forest solar power (electricity) wires were put up. Far inside that forest one sandal wood tree was seen felled. PWs 1 and 2 inspected the same. A few metres away another tree was also seen felled. They inspected it. And another place also, a few metres away, one more sandal wood tree was seen felled. The height and girth of the remaining stumps and of the cut sandal wood trees were mentioned in Exhibit P1 seizure mahazar. The length, girth and circumference of the cut pieces found near those stumps were also mentioned in Exhibit P1 Mahazar. Another sandal wood tree was also seen cut and felled. The length and girth of all those sandal wood pieces seen near the cut stumps were specifically noted in Exhibit P1 mahazar. PWs 1 and 2 could see the accused a few metres away scrapping and removing the barks of the sandalwood trees. The saps and chips were found at the place where the accused was scrapping and removing the barks. It appears in one of the trees the pith of the sandal wood was not there and it was left at the very same place where it was cut. The pieces of other trees contained pith of the sandalwood. 3. It was mentioned in Exhibit P1 that because the chips were found to be useless those chips were not taken into custody. It was also stated that the axe and saw were also taken into custody. It is true that those properties were not marked in evidence. All the sandal wood logs were seized as per Exhibit P1 mahazar, prepared then and there. The signatures of the accused was obtained on Exhibit P1. It was also stated that the axe and saw were also taken into custody. It is true that those properties were not marked in evidence. All the sandal wood logs were seized as per Exhibit P1 mahazar, prepared then and there. The signatures of the accused was obtained on Exhibit P1. It was stated that since the incident took place far inside the forest there was no independent witness so no independent witness could be procured by the forest guards. Since they thought that the accused will escape, he was arrested and produced before the Forest Range Office. On the next day itself the Forester inspected the scene of occurrence and found the facts mentioned as correct, as noted in Exhibit P1 seizure mahazar. 4. Much was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence to show that the area where from the sandal wood trees were cut and where the cut pieces of sandalwood were seen felled, falls within the reserve forest. This contention is stoutly resisted by the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest). There was absolutely no case for the accused before the trial court that the scene of occurrence where the trees were felled and cut into pieces was not part of the reserve forest. When question was put to him that the scene of occurrence as mentioned in Exhibit P1, was part of Mandakole reserve forest and that it is covered by Exhibit P2 notification in respect of which evidence was given by PW1, the petitioner only feigned ignorance. When the accused was asked to state anything abut the case, he only stated that he was taken to the Forest Office and that he did not take or remove sandal wood. There was absolutely no case for him that the area in question was not a reserve forest nor was there any case for him that the felled sandalwood trees of which the barks were being chipped off by him belonged to him or that he was doing it within his property, or at any rate beyond the reserve forest. Whether the scene of occurrence is part of a reserve forest is actually a question of fact. There was no denial of that fact. Moreover this plea was not specifically raised before the two courts below. 5. Whether the scene of occurrence is part of a reserve forest is actually a question of fact. There was no denial of that fact. Moreover this plea was not specifically raised before the two courts below. 5. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plan showing the lie and position of the property should have been produced by the prosecution. Since the evidence would clearly show that there was live wire (charged by solar energy) fence along the boundary of the forest and that the trees were seen felled far inside the forest and since that part of the evidence remains un-controverted, it is too late in the day for the accused to contend that the scene of occurrence is not a reserve forest. 6. The contention that Exhibit P1 does not take in part of Mandakole Beat of Kattikaje is also untenable since on going through page 6 of Exhibit P1 it can be clearly found that the boundary of the entire forest had been made mention of, which takes in the forest in Kattikaje portion of the reserve forest which was part of Mandakole Reserve Forest. No question was put by the defence challenging those aspects. 7. The only question put by the defence was that there were no sandalwood trees in Mandakole reserve forest and not that the area in question was not part of Munakole reserve. Contention was raised by the defence that the prosecution should have produced the plan and register maintained by the Village Office showing the lie or number of sandalwood trees. No such register was being maintained in the Village Office. When the factum of felling of four sandal wood trees was specifically noted in Exhibit P1 mahazar, the aforesaid plea raised by the accused has no legs to stand. 8. There is no case for the prosecution that the sandalwood trees were numbered by the Forest Department. Those trees were standing inside the forest among other trees. It was contended that the preparation of the mahazar was not witnessed by independent witnesses. That was well explained by the prosecution stating that since it was far inside the forest there was no independent witness at the relevant time. That was mentioned in Exhibit P1 itself. 9. Those trees were standing inside the forest among other trees. It was contended that the preparation of the mahazar was not witnessed by independent witnesses. That was well explained by the prosecution stating that since it was far inside the forest there was no independent witness at the relevant time. That was mentioned in Exhibit P1 itself. 9. The fact that far outside the forest there is a settlement colony is no reason to say that any member of that colony could trespass into that forest and fell sandalwood trees. Even though the accused was not seen cutting or felling the sandalwood trees, there is evidence to show that he was removing barks of one of the felled trees. He has confessed the factum of felling also. It is also argued that the sandal wood pieces mentioned in Exhibit P1 were not produced or marked before Court and so there is no legal evidence to prove the seizure of the sandal wood pieces. Sandal wood logs are liable for confiscation under section 61(A) of Kerala Forest Act. Hence those properties are not required to be produced before Criminal Court (vide the decision of the apex court in State of Kerala Vs. Ancy Philip 2008 (3) KLT 477 SC). 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the courts below were not justified in relying upon the confession statement alleged to have been recorded by the Forest Range Officer. That contention is also untenable, in view of the fact that at no point of time he had sent any petition to any Officer alleging that a false statement was recorded by the Forest Range Officer and that it was vitiated by fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. Even when he was examined under section 313 CrPC, he had no case that he had sent any petition nor is there anything to show that he had retracted the confession statement. There is nothing to show that the confession statement recorded by the forest officer is vitiated on any ground whatsoever. Therefore, the contention that the prosecution cannot rely upon the confession statement of the accused is also devoid of any merit. 11. A specific question was put to him that on 9.9.2006 he had appeared before PW3 and Exhibit P4 the confession statement was given by him. Therefore, the contention that the prosecution cannot rely upon the confession statement of the accused is also devoid of any merit. 11. A specific question was put to him that on 9.9.2006 he had appeared before PW3 and Exhibit P4 the confession statement was given by him. Except stating that the said evidence is not true there was no case for him that he had retracted the confession or that Exhibit P4 is vitiated by fraud or coercion. Even if Exhibit P4 is eschewed from consideration the evidence given by PWs 1 and 2 and other contemporaneous records would prove to the hilt that the offence alleged against the petitioner could be proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. It is proved that he had trespassed into the reserve forest mentioned above. It was also proved that he had felled sandalwood trees and was actually removing barks of one of the felled trees. As such the conviction under sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e) (iv) is only to be confirmed. 12. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.5,000/- as fine. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person residing in the settlement colony nearby the forest and that he belongs to a poor family of a tribal community. Considering all the aspects, I find that the sentence can be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay Rs.1,000/- which is the minimum punishment prescribed for the offence. 13. In the result this Criminal R.P. is disposed of as follows: The conviction is confirmed. The sentence imposed on the petitioner stands modified to rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each (Total Rs.2,000/-). The substantive sentences will run concurrently.