State of H.P. vs Mast Ram

Bhawani Singh, J.—By this appeal, the State has challenged the acquittal of the accused by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chopal in Case No. 11-1/84, decided on 21-9-1985 u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

Briefly, the facts are that on 28-5-1983, Forest Guard Kali Ram was patrolling Nisculi Dehat with Kewal Ram, Block Officer, Mangat Ram and Sita Ram. They found five trees of Ban and three trees of Kail illicitly cut on the spot. As a result of inquiry, it was found that these trees were illicitly felled by the accused. He was summoned at the spot where two Gallies of Kail and two scants of one full tree of second "B" were seized by affixing seize hammer No. 28 by the Forest Guard and were then handed over on Spurdari to Sita Ram.

Damage report (Ext. PW 1/B) was prepared against the accused who also made extra judicial confession admitting the cutting of trees in question, and he signed the Iqbalnama in the presence of Mangat Ram, Sita Ram and Parma Nand. The Block Officer also investigated the case and recorded the statements of accused, Mangat Ram and Sita Ram. Then the challan was put up in the trial Court for the prosecution of the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses to support its case. The prosecution proved the damage report (Ext. PW 1/B), Spurdarinama (Ext. PW 1/A) and the statements recorded by the Block Officer during the course of investigation. However, the trial ended in the acquittal of the accused, since the trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused. In addition to this, it was also found that the Iqbalnama was not proved in the case and that the prosecution witnesses Mangat Ram (PW 2) and Sita Ram (PW 3) did not support the version of the prosecution that the accused was present at the spot and he gave the statement admitting the commission of the offence.

Shri Ram Murti Bisht, Id. counsel for the State, assails the impugned judgment and contends that the conclusion of the trial judge that the offence is not proved against the accused is absolutely against the evidence on record. Let the matter be examined by a reference to the record of this case.

When the forest people found five trees illicitly felled on the spot, they made certain inquiries which revealed that the accused was responsible for cutting these trees. Accordingly, he was called to the spot where he admitted having cut those trees. Consequently, damage report (Ext. PW1/B) was prepared. Then Iqbalnama (confessional statement) was also recorded and duly signed by Mangat Ram (PW-2) and Sita Ram (PW-3). There is statement of the accused (Ext. PW-4/A) on the record of this case, wherein he has duly admitted having cut these trees illicitly and also agreed to pay the compensation therefor. This fact is supported by Mangat Ram (PW-2) in Ext. PW-2/A and Sita Ram (PW-3) in Ext. PW-3/A. In view of this kind of evidence produced on the record of this case, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused. The inference of the trial Judge that the Iqbalnama (confessional statement) was not duly proved does not make any difference, since this document is on the record of this case. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses have already given their statements relating to this document. Giving of exhibit mark to a document, in my opinion, is only for the purpose of identification and facility. It may be a different thing where the witnesses do not at all say anything about the document which remains without any exhibit mark. This is not so in the present case.

In view of the aforesaid conclusion, it is established that the accused cut the trees and admitted having done so. Offence u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act, therefore, stands established against the accused and he is convicted for the same.

Now the question arises what punishment should be awarded to the accused. Shri Ram Murti Bisht, Law Officer submits that the accused should be given exemplary punishment since he went on cutting the trees despite the fact that the Forest Guard asked him to stop from doing so. Moreover, the illicit felling of trees in this State has been on a large scale. It is being done for petty economic gains at the cost of ecology and forest wealth of the nation and the State. There is substance in the submissions of the ld. counsel for the State. It is relevant to quote article inserted in Part-IV of Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976, which reads as under:

48A. 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.

By the same amendment, Chapter IV-A 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;

The offence was committed on 28-5-1983 and a period of more than seven years has passed. The Petitioner is a remote village and this appears to be his first offence. Moreover, looking to the nature of timber in question, the illicit felling does not appear to be for any economic gain, since this kind of timber is used as fuel wood and for making agricultural implements. In such a situation, it is not desirable to award sentence of imprisonment and ends of justice would be met, in case the accused is sentenced to pay fine. Accordingly, the accused is directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.