Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 40 (MP)

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SEETA RAM RINGA KORKOO

2009-01-09

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS criminal appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 9/11/1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Harda in Criminal Case No. 51/1989, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charge under Section 33 of the Forest Act, 1927 read with Section 379 of IPC. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case in short is that on 15/12/1988 Deputy Ranger R. S. Rajpoot received information that respondent Sitaram is having Sagaon woods illegally in his possession, therefore K. K. Joshi, SDO (Forest) gave search warrant to R. S. Rajpoot to search the house of respondent No. 1. On 19/12/1988 R. S. Rajpoot along with other officials of the Forest Department went to the house of respondents. Sitaram was not found in the house, but his son Budhoo was found there. He apprised him about illegal possession of the woods, and gave search warrant Ex. P1 and also obtained his thumb impression. The search was conducted, in which it was found that near about 50 Sagaon logs cut by axe and embedded in the baadi belonging to the respondents, which were taken out by digging. The Panchanama was prepared. The woods were seized. P. O. R. was registered against the respondent No. 1. The statements of witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Harda. ( 3. ) ACCUSED persons were charged under Section 33 of the Forest Act, 1927 read with Section 379 of IPC. The respondents denied their guilt and claimed to be tried, mainly contending that they have been falsely implicated. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, whereas the respondents examined only one witness. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court cquitted them from the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, this instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh after taking leave from this Court on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. ( 4. ) KU. Alka Pandya, Advocate was engaged by the respondents as their counsel but she did not appear to argue the case on the date of hearing on 5/12/2008. The appeal was pending since 1994. Therefore, Ku. ( 4. ) KU. Alka Pandya, Advocate was engaged by the respondents as their counsel but she did not appear to argue the case on the date of hearing on 5/12/2008. The appeal was pending since 1994. Therefore, Ku. Rukhsana has been appointed from the panel of the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee to argue the case on behalf of the respondents so that the appeal may be disposed of expeditiously. ( 5. ) SHRI J. K. Jain, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/state submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. It has been amply proved by the prosecution evidence that Sagaon woods were recovered from the possession of the respondents, in spite of it trial Court has acquitted them from the aforesaid charges. The finding of acquittal is erroneous, which deserves to be set aside and the respondents be punished. ( 6. ) ON the contrary Ku. Rukhsana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the impugned judgment, mainly contending that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents, therefore the trial Court has rightly acquitted them from the aforesaid charges. The trial Court has taken the possible view, hence no interference is called for. ( 7. ) THE main point for consideration by this Court is that whether the trial Court has committed an illegality in acquitting the respondents from the charges under Section 33 of the Forest Act, 1927 read with Section 379 of IPC. ( 8. ) A. K. JOSHI, SDO Forest (PW-4) issued search warrant Ex. P-1, on the basis of which search of the baadi of the respondents was conducted. ( 9. ) SHRIRAM Rathore, Forest Guard (PW-1), Vijay Singh Raghuvanshi, Forest Guard (PW-2), K. K. Malviya, Deputy Ranger Bhimpura (PW-3) and Gyanchand, Forest Guard (PW-5) are the employees of the Forest Department. They have deposed that near about 50 Sagaon woods were recovered from the baadi belonging to the respondents, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-6. ( 10. ) PATIRAM (PW-6) and Aatmaram (PW-7) are the seizure witnesses. Out of them, Patiram (PW-6) has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. However, Aatmaram (PW-7) has given evidence in support of the prosecution and has stated that 45 Sagaon woods were recovered from the baadi of the respondents. ( 11. P-6. ( 10. ) PATIRAM (PW-6) and Aatmaram (PW-7) are the seizure witnesses. Out of them, Patiram (PW-6) has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. However, Aatmaram (PW-7) has given evidence in support of the prosecution and has stated that 45 Sagaon woods were recovered from the baadi of the respondents. ( 11. ) THUS, the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution is that such woods were recovered from the baadi of the respondents, but there is no evidence that these woods were stolen from the Government Forest or reserved forest. There is no any witness, who has seen respondents either cutting woods from the forest or carrying the same from the forest. It has been brought on record that Sagaon woods are found not only in the Government Forest, but also in the Bhumiswami land. No report of theft was lodged by any of these four forest employees against the respondents, even no POR was registered against them prior to seizure of the woods. The attempt has not been made to compare the seized woods with the remnant woods in the forest to prove that the woods were belonging to Government forest. It has also been brought on record that notification of reserved forest is required to be issued, but no such notification has been produced by the prosecution. The evidence is lacking regarding stealing of woods from the Government forest or reserved forest. No document has been collected to show that the place from where the woods were seized was in the exclusive possession of the respondents. It has also been brought on record that respondent Sitaram was not at the house when the search was conducted, but it is surprising that his thumb impression was taken on seizure memo when he was arrested. This shows the irregularities of the proceeding done by the concerned employees. When respondent Sitarama was not there why seizure memo was made in his name is beyond comprehension. It has also been brought on record that respondent No. 2 was not alone in the house, there were other members also. The place from where the woods were seized is open place and is accessible to all, therefore in such circumstances it cannot be said that woods were in exclusive possession of the respondents. ( 12. It has also been brought on record that respondent No. 2 was not alone in the house, there were other members also. The place from where the woods were seized is open place and is accessible to all, therefore in such circumstances it cannot be said that woods were in exclusive possession of the respondents. ( 12. ) THE suggestive questions have been asked to some of the witnesses that respondent Sitaram made complaint against Shri Gupta, Ranger regarding his corruption, but none of the witnesses have specifically denied regarding such complaint. They all have given the evasive replies. The defence of the respondents is that since the complaint was made against Shri Gupta, Ranger and Shri Vijay Singh Raghuvanshi, Forest Guard, therefore they have been falsely implicated at the instance of Shri Gupta, Ranger. It is also the defence of the respondents that Sitaram respondent was also beaten by the forest employees. His medical report finds place on the record, which shows that he was examined on 2/1/1989 by the doctor and injuries mentioned in that medical report were found. Thus, the possibility of implicating them falsely cannot be ruled out. ( 13. ) THE trial Court has dealt with every aspect in great detail and has rightly found them not guilty for the aforesaid offences. The trial Court has taken the possible view, therefore no interference in the finding of the trial Court is called for. The appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be set aside. ( 14. ) CONSEQUENTLY, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.