State vs Chet Ram

Bhawani Singh, J.—State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of accused by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chopal, in case No. 28/1 of 1983, decided on 22-11-1985 relating to offence u/s 33, Indian Forest Act.

Briefly, the case is that on 26-11 -1982 Forest Guard Hira Singh, accompanied by Murat Singh and Parma Nand, was patrolling Sunkhar Dehat and found three trees of Kail illicitly felled on the spot. The accused was present there. Twenty-three scants were found at the spot and were seized by affixing seizure hammer No. 28. They were handed over to Murat Singh on Spurdari. Damage report was prepared against the accused who admitted the crime and made extrajudicial confession to this effect. Iqbalnama was prepared which was also signed by the accused by putting his thumb impression. Hari Singh, Block Officer also recorded the statement of the accused in the presence of Murat Singh and thereafter the accused was prosecuted in the Court where he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses to prove the damage report (Ext. PB), Iqbalnama (Ext. PC), Spurdarinama (Ext. PA) and the statement of accused (Ext. PW-2/A) that was recorded during the course of the investigation.

The trial ended in the acquittal of the accused on the ground that the prosecution evidence as to the cutting of the trees was conflicting, since according to the Forest Guard Hira Singh (PW-1), the accused was found felling the trees on the spot while Forest Guard Parma Nand (PW-3) admits in his cross-examination that he did not see the accused felling it. Trees. Similarly, Murat Singh (PW4) has also denied the felling of trees by the accused in his presence. The trial Court has also come to the conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution as to the extra-judicial confession by the accused is contradictory in the sense that according to the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the accused admitted having cut the trees, but the Iqbalnama (Ext. PC) is thoroughly blank and does not show against whom it was prepared and the extra-judicial confession has not been legally proved. Murat Singh (PW-4) has denied having received twenty-three scants on Spurdari, therefore, this aspect of the prosecution case also remains without any proof.

I have examined these conclusions of the trial Court with reference to the evidence on record. These conclusions are in tune with the evidence and there is no justification to take a different view than the one already taken by the trial Court. Moreover, this is an appeal against acquittal which cannot normally be set-aside, unless the approach of the trial Court is grossly unreasonable and palpably perverse. This is not so in the present case.

The result is, there is no merit in this appeal by the State, the same is, therefore, dismissed.