State of H.P. vs Mahboob

Bhawani Singh, J.—The State has challenged the acquittal of the accused by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Paonta-Sahib in Case No. 55/3 of 1984, 1357/1 of 1984, decided on 24-3-1986. It is a case u/s 26 of the Indian Forest Act.

The allegation against the accused is that he encroached on the land forming part of reserved forest Chand Pur Kathari and also uprooted Kokath trees standing on this land. The crime was detected by Hari Saran, Forest Guard who prepared the damage report (Ext. PA) against the accused. The wood of the uprooted trees was also recovered and given on Spurdari vide Memo. (Ext. PC). The accused also confessed his guilt before the Forest Guard (Ext. PB). After investigation, the accused was prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

Hari Saran (PW-3) is the Forest Guard. He states that on 13-12-1982, he was patrolling Chand Pur Kathari reserved forest and found that the accused had cultivated land out of the reserved forest and also cut six trees. The timber was lying at the spot where the accused was also present with axe. He admitted having cut the trees. Chuhara Ram (PW-4) was brought from the village to the place of occurrence and damage report was prepared. It was signed by the accused as well as by witness Chuhara Ram (PW-4). Iqbalnama (Ext. PB) was also prepared and was thumb marked by the accused. The timber was given in the Spurdari of Chuhara Ram (PW-4) (Ext. PC). This land was got measured from the Patwari.

Chuhara Ram (PW-4) has turned hostile. He has denied having seen the accused while cutting the trees. He has also denied about the recovery of timber and the Sporadic of the same. However, he has admitted having signed documents (Ext. PB) and (Ext. PC) which are material to this case. During cross-examination, he has admitted that seventeen galis were found lying at the spot, but could not say whether they were cut by the accused.

Perusal of Ext. PA shows that the Forest Guard counted the stumps of the trees which had been uprooted from out of the land in question. It also mentions that the accused had admitted having cut the trees. Ext. PB is the extra-judicial confession of the accused relating to the commission of offence. It has been thumb marked by him and Chuhara Ram (PW-4) has attested it. Therefore, even if Chuhara Ram (PW-4) has turned hostile, the prosecution case stands proved as discussed above. The conclusion of the trial Court to the contrary, on this aspect of the matter, is clearly perverse and deserves to be set-aside. Similarly, the conclusion of the trial Court that the prosecution has not been able to prove that this forest is a reserved forest and so declared by the Government under the Indian Forest Act, is also untenable in view of the copy of the notification and the notice on the record of this case. Besides this, u/s 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act there is presumption that all official acts are presumed to have been regularly done. Moreover, the case of the State is that the accused committed the offence in the reserved forest. This fact is asserted by the Forest Guard in his statement and the accused has also not disputed it. Otherwise also, every one in the villages knows the nature of the Government forest and also the fact that breaking of the same and cutting of trees therein are prohibited.

In view of the aforesaid discussion of the matter, the findings recorded by the trial Court are incorrect and are, therefore, set-aside. The accused is convicted for the aforesaid offence.

Now, the question is what penalty should be awarded to the accused? Learned Counsel for the State contended that in order to prevent mass illicit felling of forest trees by people for petty economic gains and to prevent damage to the ecology and revenue of the State, the accused should be awarded exemplary punishment. Reference to Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India was also made.

Looking to the fact that the offence was committed on 13-12-1982 and a period of about eight years has passed, the accused is an agriculturist and the damage was caused in order to cultivate the land, no economic gain is involved in his action. It appears to be his first offence. Accordingly, instead of awarding jail sentence, he is directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and on failure to do so, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.