State of H.P. vs Sunder Singh

Bhawanj Singh, J.—The acquittal of the accused by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, in case No. 297/3 of 1982, decided on July 24, 1986, in a case u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act, has been assailed by the State in this appeal.

The prosecution case, briefly, is that on 23-12-1981, Forest Guard Bhajan Dass, was on patrol duty in Forest Compartment No. 60 where he found two trees having been illicitly felled. The accused, who was standing nearby, admitted having felled the trees but stated that the trees were felled from his own land. However, damage report was prepared by the Forest Guard and thereafter confessional statement was also recorded which was signed by the accused. After investigation, the accused was prosecuted u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act. The trial ended in the acquittal of the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the charge against the accused since the land in question was not demarcated. The question, therefore, is whether this conclusion of the trial court is correct or requires to be set-aside.

Perusal of the record discloses that the Forest Guard prepared the damage report against the accused and then recorded his confessional statement duly signed by the accused and two witnesses, namely, Bihari Lal and Nazir Mal. In his statement (Ex. PA) the accused has stated that he would get the land demarcated within a week and in case it was found that the trees belonged to the Government, he would pay the damages for the same. No measurement was carried out by him to substantiate his version of the case.

The State has come forward with a specific case that the trees were cut from the Government forest, Compartment No. 60, and it had no doubt as to the land and the trees belonging to anyone else than the State. Doubt, if any, was taken in defense by the accused. He also asserted that he would carry out the demarcation in a week''s time but the did not carry out the same. In such a situation, to say that the same should have been done by the Government, even if it had no doubt about the trees falling in the Government forest, cannot be accepted. Moreover, the accused has signed the confessional statement without any protest. This also goes against the accused.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conclusion of the trial court is perverse and deserves to be set- aside. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed 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. The learned Counsel for the State submits that the accused deserves to be punished severely as it is quite common that people cut trees in the Government forest illicitly and, more particularly, in the forest adjoining their land, for petty gains and then raise the defence that they believed that the trees belonged to them. If such a defense without any further proof is accepted, there would be mass devastation of forests which is already there in the State for the last many years, the learned Counsel for the State submitted. Reference to Article 48A, inserted in Part-IV of the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, was also made, which is as under:

48-A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forest and wild life.-The State shall endeavor 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, the relevant part whereof is quoted as under:

51-A. Fundamental duties.-It shall be the duty of every citizen of India:

XX XX XX XX XX

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

XX XX XX XX

There is quite a good deal of substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the State but the offence in this case was committed on 23-12-1981 and a period of more than 9 years has passed. Moreover, this appears to be the first offence of the accused and only two trees are involved. In these circumstances, interest of justice would be met in case the accused is sentenced to pay a fine instead of undergoing 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.