State of H.P. vs Chet Ram

Bhawani Singh, J.—The State feels aggrieved by the decision of acquittal passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Their, in case No. 134/1 of 1985 decided on 31-5-1985 for offence u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter to be refined to as the Act), hence this appeal.

The facts, in brief, are that the Forest Guard, Gulab Singh, was on patrol duty in Jubtu forest along with Budhi Ram and Karan Bahadur. He found two trees of Kail of Class-III illicitly cut but the accused at the spot. Twenty scants as well as fire wood had been prepared at the spot. The same was seized by the Forest Guard and given to Karan Bahadur on Sapurddari. The accused confessed to have cut the trees in question in the presence of the witnesses whereupon the Forest Guard prepared a Damage Report against the accused as well as the Confessional statement as per the procedure adopted by the Forest Department for the purpose in such like cases. The witnesses appended their signatures to these documents (Damage report and Confessional statement). The matter was brought to the notice of the Block Officer and then the present complaint u/s 33 of the Act was initiated against the accused in the Court.

The accused was served. He put in appearance, teguments, as required, were supplied to harmful The accusations were put to hefty. The accused did not pled guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 the prosecutor examined three witnesses in support of its case. They are, Gulab Sin h, Forest Guard (PW-1) Budhi Ram (PW-2) and Karan Bahadur (PW-3). The accused in addition to his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure produced Jogiridef Singh, Pataki, in his defense.

Sh. Gulab Singh (PW 1) is the Deputy Ranger. He found two Kail trees of Class-III size cut when the visited Jubtu for est oti 14-1-1983. He was accompanied by Buchi Ram (PW-2) and Karan Bahadur (PW-3. The accused was present at the spot. He was stacking fire womb as well as Gaku. On being asked, the accused confessed his guilt whereupora a report (Ex. P-A) was datary. Confession statement (Ex. P-B) also was filled tip. It was read over to the accused and he signed the same after accept rig the same as correct. Budhi Ram (PW2) and Karan Bahadur (PW-3) lads signed these documents whichever weterea''d over to thetas well the timber was handed overt (Pw-3) on Supurdddfi. The Saputdnania was read over to him also and the same was aged by the Sapurddar. In cross-Examination B, he denied the suggestion that the accused had1 told him that he had cut the trees from his own land. He also denied the suggestion of the accused that he obtained the signatures of the accused after telling him that he was making the record indicating the fact that the accused had cut the trees from his 6"wnership land. The accused belongs to the Village of Budhi Ram (PW-2). Budhi Ram admits-that he was taken by the Guard that day and the accused was with him. At the spot timber was found cut by the accused. The forest was about 15 yards from this place where the timber was found lying. The accused admittednavifig cut the same when asked by the Guard and t3aMgereport was prepared. The statement of the accused was recbrcarjb these mislabeled by them. But, he denies the timber having been seized and Made on Sapurddari. He was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution at its request. He admits fit crossExamiriation that the accused had admitted his gut and he as well as the accused signed tied confessional statement. He, however, denies Karan Bahadur PW-3J having segued this document in their presence. He further states that the accused had told the Guard that he had cut the trees from his ownership land. (PW-3) Karan Bahadur also supports the prosecution that the accused had cut the trees and admits his presence along with the accused and the Forest Guard at the spot. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination he ad it�s that the accused signed the document after he admitted the commission of the offence but further says that the accused had signed the document alleging that he had cut the trees from his land.

In defense, Joiner Singh Patwan (D.W-1 jihad measured the land but his statement and measurement do not in any way improve the case of the accused. It does not clearly establish that the land in question was exactly that of the accused.

Sh. M.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General, has very strenuously argued that in accordance with the procedure applicable in the Forest Department for detecting offences under the Act, the documents Ex. P-A and Ex.P-B have been prescribed. The same are filled up by the official who detects the commission of the offence. They are signed by the accused and the witnesses, if available. Referring to the present case, the State counsel, argues that the documents Ex. P-A and Ex. P-B have been rightly executed and they have been signed by the witnesses. Deviation in their state nets, he asserts, are only minor and due to the fact that Budhi Ram (PW-2) belongs the Village of the Appellant-accused and Karan Bahadur (PW-3) is the Supaurddar of the property who is to account for the safe custody of the same. In case the custody of the property is not proved, he could make use of the same.

The submissions are opposed by Mrs. Ranjna Parmar, counselor the accused.

After examining the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to reappreciate the evidence on the record and set aside the order of accuittal passed by the trial court. The offence against the accused is established by the statement of Gulab Singh (P W-1) corroborated on material parts by Budhi Ram (PW-2J and Karan Bahadur - (PW-3). The assertion of the accused that the trees were cut out of his own land is false and set up simply to escape from the consequences of the commission of the offence. He has failed to substantiate it through his defence witness. He has not been able to account for the felling of the trees in question. Emphasis laid on the fact that the timber was lying at a distance of fifteen yards from the forest is of no consequence because the timber has been cut from the forest and stacked at a distance of fifteen yards. So, this assertion does not in any way exculpate the accused from the commission of the offence; There is no evidence that the accused was compelled to sign the Damage Report (Ex. P-A) and his statement. The assertion that he signed the same under the impression that the Guard was making the record indicating that the trees were cut from his ownership land is utterly without substance. The signatures are not disputed by the accused and the witnesses including Karan Bahadur (P W -3) as a witness on (Ex. P-B) and his having received the timber on Supurddan (Ex. P-C).

It It has further been submitted by Mrs. Ranjna Parmar that notifications declaring the forest as prohibited under the Forest Act have not been issued. So, in the absence of the notifications, no offence can be initiated against the accused.

Firstly, this objection was never taken by the accused in the trial court. He was represented by a counsel. Secondly, in view of the notifications dated 25-2-1952 and 28 2-1952 shown by Sh. M.S. Guleria, learned Asset. Advocate General, this agued of Mrs. Ranjna Parmar is not substantiated and is, therefore, rejected. The result is, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial court is set aside and the accused is convicted u/s 33 of the Act.

On the question of sentence, Sh. M.S. Guleria, learned Asset. Advocate General, has laid lot oil stress. He argues that felling to trees illicitly by unscrupulous persons has been rampant in the State. Forests worth cores of rupees have teen finished causing not only loss in revenue to the State but also ecological repercussion to the whole nation.

Looking to the immediate urgency to protect the forest and environment, Articles 48-A and 51-A have been added to the Constitution of India (42nd Amendment Act, 1976, with effect from 3-1-1977) which read as under:

48-A. PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND SAFEGUARDING 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.

51-A. FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES.

It shall be the duty of every citizen of India.

(a)...........

(b)...........

(C)...........

(d)...........

(e)...........

(f)...........

(g) To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;

Sh. M.S. Guleria, therefore, contends that the forests offenders should be given deterrent punishment so that it operates as deterrent'' for the repetition of such offences.

Looking to the facts of this case, the accused does not appear to be indulging in repeated felling of trees. There is 10 such evidence. Present appears to be his first Act. Trees of Kail of Class-Ill size are in issue and the offence pertains to 14-1-1983. I, therefore, things that imposition of fine would meet the ends of justice in this case. I, therefore, sentence the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and defaulted payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment tore three months.