Rais Khan and Others vs State of Uttaranchal/Uttarakhand

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Both these revisions are directed against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/First Fast Track Court, Kashipur, in criminal appeal No. 17 of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2001 whereby said court has affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur) in Criminal Case No. 2328 of 2001, relating to offence punishable u/s 279 I.P.C against the revisionists Omprakash, Jaipal, Teeka and Chandrabhan and u/s 411 of I.P.C against the revisionist Rais Khan.

Brief facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 13th and 14th of May 1993, sixteen logs of twelve green trees of SAGON were found being illegality transported by the accused towards Thakurdwara from Bhawanipur which was seen by forest officials. The accused who transported said logs of trees from a reserved forest were Omprakash, Jaipal, Teeka, Chandrabhan (and two other Ranjit and Gulrani who are not revisionist before this Court). On execution of search warrant, the recovery of the transported logs of the trees were found in the possession of revisionist Rais Khan. The report was lodged by the forest officials with the police station Jaspur, on the basis of which the Crime No. 202 of 1993 was registered, and after investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/revisionists and the two others namely Ranjit and Gulrani. After giving necessary copies to the accused charge relating to offences punishable u/s 379/411 I.P.C., and one punishable u/s 26 Indian Forest Act were framed against all the seven accused, who pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Nand Kishore (beat watcher) PW2 Puran Singh (Driver) PW3 Indra Singh (Range officer) and PW4 Jaman Singh (Forest guard). The oral and documentary evidence were put to the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they alleged the same to be false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties found accused Jaipal, Omprakash, Chandrabhan, Teeka Ram, Ranjit and Gulrani guilty of offence punishable u/s 379 I.P.C, and accused Rais Khan guilty of charge of offence punishable u/s 411 I.P.C. On hearing on sentence, each one of the convict was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one and half years and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 22.11.2001 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, in Criminal Case No. 2328 of 2001, the convicts preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge. The appeal was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge/First Fast Track Court Kashipur for its disposal. After hearing the parties the appellate court dismissed the appeal No. 17 of 2001 filed by Omprakash, Jaipal Singh and Teeka Ram, Appeal No. 20 of 2001 filed by Chandrabhan; and the appeal No. 22 of 2001 filed by Rais Khan. Hence, these revisions.

After considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the evidence on trial court record, this Court finds no illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. The charge framed against the revisionists Jaipal, Omprakash, Teekaram and Chandrabhan, relating to offence punishable u/s 379 I.P.C., is proved from the statement of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution. As against the revisionist Rais Khan also charge relating to offence punishable u/s 411 I.P.C is proved from the statement of the witnesses and also from the recovery memo exhibit-A2, which is signed by the revisionist Rais khan himself at the time of recovery of sixteen logs of twelve green SAGON trees.

In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial court against the revisionists. However, considering the facts and circumstances, and the period the revisionists have already undergone during trial and after their appeals were dismissed (this Court granted bail on 17.04.2002) in the interest of justice it is desirable to reduce the sentence against the revisionists to the period already spent by them in jail, and affirming the sentence of fine recorded by the trial court. Accordingly, both the revisions are disposed of affirming the conviction of the revisionists recorded by the trial court. However, the sentence awarded against the revisionists by the trial court is reduced to the period already undergone by the present revisionists in jail, without interference with the sentence of fine directed to be paid by them by the trial court. Lower court record be sent back to the courts below.