State of H.P. vs Chauria

Bhawani Singh, J. 1. The State has challenged the acquittal of the accused in case No. 7/2 of 1986/3/3 of 1986 decided on 2.7.1986.

The case against the accused is u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act and the allegation against him is that on 18-1-1985 at about 6.00 P.M., Forest Guard Diwaker Sharma (PW-1) while patrolling the demarcated protected forest, Jandar, found the accused felling two Deodar trees of Class-V. The Forest Guard prepared the damage report (Ex. PA). Thereafter he recorded the confessional statement (Ex. PB) of the accused on the back of document Ex. PA. It has been duly signed by the accused as well as witness Hem Chand (PW-2). Thereafter, the matter was examined by the Deputy Ranger, Khema Ram (PW-3) who called upon the accused to pay the compensation.

The accused was prosecuted for the commission of offence falling u/s 33 of Indian Forest Act before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (1) Shimla but he was acquitted by the impugned judgment.

Shri Ram Murti Bisht counsel for the State submits that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside since the same is against the evidence on record. During the course of arguments in this case, my attention was drawn to the statements of the witnesses produced in this case in addition to various documents on the record of this case. From the perusal of the record of this case, it is clear that the Petitioner was found felling the trees in question. His axe was seized and was handed over to Hem Chand (PVV-2). The accused admitted the commission of the offence in the Confessional Statement (Ex. PB). It has been signed by Hem Chand (PW-2) also. Although Hem Chand (PW-2), who is stated to be an independent witness in the case, has resiled from his statement, however, on the material aspect, namely that the accused was caught on the spot and his axe was seized in connection with this case and handed over to him at the same time is admitted. Further, perusal of document Ex. PX shows that the accused had admitted having cut these trees in his statement made to the Forest Guard. He has also admitted that his axe was taken. He has also admitted the presence of Hem Chand (PW-2) and also the receipt of notices whereby he was called upon to pay the compensation. His answer was that the compensation was high and he could not pay the same being poor. Then there is statement of Hem Chand (PW-2) admitting his presence at the spot and the cutting of the trees by the accused and seizing of the axe which was handed over to him by the Forest Guard.

In view of this kind of evidence the conclusion of the trial Judge that independent witness did not support the prosecution case is palpably erroneous. There is sufficient evidence to prove the commission of the offence against the accused and in these circumstances the order of acquittal passed in this case is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly this appeal is allowed the judgment of the trial Judge is set aside and the accused 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 submits that the accused should be given exemplary punishment since he cut two trees of Class v. variety. The learned Counsel also submits that in view of rempantillicit felling of trees in this state for petty economic gains at the cost of ecology and forest wealth of the nation and the State, it is imperative that exemplary punishment should be awarded to the accused. Counsel also referred to artilce inserted in Part-IV of Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976, which reads as under:

48-A. Protection and improvement of environment and safe guarding of forest and wild life. The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the Country.

By the same amendment, Chapter IV dealing with Fundamental Duties-was added, relevant part whereof is quoted as under:

51-A: Fundamental duties- It shall be the duty of every citizen of India-(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.

From the perusal of the record, it appears that the accused is a first offender. The offence was committed on 18-1-1985 and a period of more than 5 years has passed. Taking compassionate view of the matter it would serve the ends of justice if the accused is sentenced to pay a fine instead of imprisonment. Accordingly, the accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.