State of H.P. vs Attar Singh and Others

Bhawani Singh, J.—The present appeal arises out of the acquittal of the accused by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chopal in Case No. 44-1/1984, dated 26-4-1986.

The present case was initiated u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act on the ground that on 15-3-1983 Forest Guard Kundan Singh was patrolling Bharog Dehat and found six trees of Kail illicitly felled on the spot. The accused made extra-judicial confession and, therefore, Iqbalnama and the damage report were prepared against them. They refused to put their signatures on the Iqbalnama. Sixteen scants, lying at the spot, were seized and were handed over to Gurdial Singh on Spurdari. The Forest Guard recorded the statement of co-accused Sewa Ram and after that the report was sent to the Range Officer for necessary action. The matter was investigated by Block Officer Keshav Ram and finally, on completion of the investigation, the accused were prosecuted for the aforesaid offence.

In order to support the case, the prosecution produced four witnesses. Out of them, Sant Ram (PW-1) and Gurdial Singh (PW-3) were declared hostile, since they did not support the prosecution case. Ultimately, the matter ended in the aforesaid acquittal of the accused.

Shri Ram Murti Bisht, learned Counsel for the State, submits that the acquittal of the accused in this case is not legally justifiable in view of the cogent and convincing evidence available on the record of this case.

After examining the case with the assistance of the ''learned Counsel for the parties and more particularly, Bhupender Bhardwaj, Advocate, who has variably (Sic) referred to various documents and statements on the record of this case in order to support the judgment of the trial Court. 1 agree with the submissions of Shri Bhupender Bhardwaj only relating to the cases of accused Attar Singh and Surtia, and hold that their acquittals are not liable to be interfered with. However, so far as accused Sewa Ram is concerned, he has admitted the allegation against him by appending his signatures on Ext. PW-l/B. There is no evidence pointing out that he was either completed to do so or the Forest officials were in any way against him. Simply because the marginal witnesses Sant Ram (PW-1) and Gurdial Singh (PW-3) have not supported the prosecution, it cannot be said that this document is incorrect. The accused need not have signed nor should these witnesses appeared as witnesses. Moreover, this accused has also given his statement (Ext. PW-l/B) admitting the commission of the crime.

In view of this kind of evidence, the order of trial Court is set-aside so far as accused Sewa Ram is concerned and he is convicted u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

Now the question arises, what punishment should be awarded to the accused? Shri Ram Murti Bisht, learned Law Officer for the State, submits that in view of the mass illicit felling of trees in the State, it is desirable that exemplary punishment should be awarded to the accused. It was also submitted that by the felling of trees, ecology and revenue of the State is being subjected to immense loss. Reference to Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India was also made. On the other hand, Shri Bhupender Bhardwaj, id counsel for the accused, submitted that a lenient view of the matter may be taken, since the accused is an agriculturist and did not cut the trees for economic gains. Moreover, the offence was committed on 15-3-1983 and a period of about seven years has passed. It was also submitted that the accused is a poor man and at the most he appears to have cut only one tree of inferior variety of Kail.

In view of the aforesaid compassionate pleas made by Bhupender Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the accused, I am of the opinion that instead of sending the accused to jail, it would serve the ends of justice, in case accused Sewa Ram is ordered to pay a fine. Accordingly, as a special case, I direct the accused to pay Rs. 100/- by way of fine, on failure to do so, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.