State of H.P. vs Chatar Singh

Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal assails the judgment of acquittal of accused by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chopal in Case No. 255/1 of 1983 by decision of 27-3-1986, u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

Briefly, the case is that on 23-10-1982, Forest Guard Man Dass was patrolling Janog Forest and found two trees of Deodar cut at the spot. He went to the village of the accused alongwith Sita Ram. The accused made extra-judicial confession to the Forest Guard in the presence of Sita Ram. Accordingly, damage report as well as Iqbalnama were prepared against the accused who put his signatures on Iqbalnama in the presence of Sita Ram.

During the course of investigation, Block Officer Niharu Ram recorded the statement of accused in the presence of Jog Ram and there also the accused admitted having felled the trees in question and agreed to pay the compensation. The statement of Jog Ram was also recorded in addition to the statement of Sita Ram. Finally, the accused was prosecuted for illicitly felling the tress in the Court at Chopal. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses.orest Guard (PW-1) proved the damage report (Ext. PA), Iqbalnama (Ext. PB) on which the accused had put his signatures. Two witnesses, namely, Jog Ram (PW-2) and Sita Ram (PW-3) turned hostile. Block Officer Niharu Ram (PW-4) proved the statements of Jog Ram (Ext. PW-2/B), Sita Ram (Ext. PW-3/A) and that of Katku (PW-5) (Ext. PW-4/A).

After perusing the evidence on record, the accused was acquitted, hence this appeal by the State.

Now the question is whether this order of acquittal is legally permissible or requires to be upset? The prosecution case is that the accused cut two trees of Deodar and made extra-judicial confession to the Forest Guard admitting the crime. There are also statements which were recorded by the Block Officer during the course of investigation of the case by him, before the present complaint was initiated against the accused. It is true that the accused was not seen by any one while cutting these trees, however, he has admitted the commission of the crime vide Ext. PB as well as Ext. PW-2/A. Therefore, even if Jog Ram (PW-2) and Sita Ram (PW-3) have resoled from their statements, the prosecution case still stands in view of the fact that the accused has not disputed his admission of guilt as recorded in Ext. PB. It is not the case of the accused that he was compelled to sign the confessional statement (Ext. PB) by the Forest Guard, therefore, it is difficult to assume that he has been proceeded against unjustifiably and that the Forest Guard was either inimical or interested against the accused.

The other reason recorded by the trial Court for the acquittal of the accused is also not of substance, since there was no dispute as to the forest being not protected forest. Notifications have been placed on the file and in addition to that there is presumption u/s 114(e) of the Evidence Act that all official acts are presumed to have been done regularly. Therefore, it is presumed that this forest has been declared protected forest under the Indian Forest Act in accordance with the statutory requirements.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the reasons recorded for the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court are not at all legal, therefore, the judgment is accordingly set-aside and the accused convicted u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

Now, the question is about the sentence part of the case. The offence was committed on 23-10-1982 and a period of more than eight years has passed. There is no past conviction against the accused. From documents (Ext. PA) and (Ext. PW-2/A) it appears that the accused is a poor agriculturist and could not pay the compensation for cutting these two trees with the result that the present prosecution was launched against him. Considering these special facts, instead of awarding jail sentence to the accused, I direct him to pay fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.