Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1732 (HP)

Jagdish Chand v. State of H. P.

2011-03-25

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2011
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J Both these revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order. The petitioners were found in possession of 20 scants of Deodar and 19 planks of ‘Kail’ which they were transporting without any permission/authority as required under the Indian Forest Act and Rules framed thereunder. 2. Initially the petitioners were charged for offences under Sections 379 IPC and Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. But after considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court found no offence under Section 379 IPC established against the petitioners and they were therefore convicted for offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of ` 3000/- each. In default of fine, they were to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. 3. The case set up by the petitioners is one of total denial. In appeal, the points urged before the learned trial Court were retrieated by the petitioners herein. The learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the entire evidence did not accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that they were not involved in the case and that the prosecution witnesses more especially PW1 H.C. Ranjeet Singh and PW5 Madan Lal were untrustworthy and their testimony full of inherent contradictions and therefore their evidence cannot be relied upon for convicting the petitioners. 4. The petitioners now challenged their conviction in revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urge that the judgment of the Courts below cannot be sustained as the incident has not been proved on record. He submits that statement of PW1 requires to be discarded straightway as according to the prosecution the seizure has been made at 9.30PM at night whereas this witness has shown his ‘Rawangi’ (departure) from the Police Station in the morning. This casts a serious doubt as to whether he was actually present at the Naka or not. 5. Similarly, the statement of PW5 Madan Lal cannot be relied upon as again his departure from the Police Station as also the time of seizure do not tally. 6. I have considered the statements of both these witnesses but I am unable to persuade myself to hold that contradictions, pointed out, are of a nature, which go to the root of the case. 6. I have considered the statements of both these witnesses but I am unable to persuade myself to hold that contradictions, pointed out, are of a nature, which go to the root of the case. In fact, learned counsel urges that both these witnesses were interested to falsely implicate the petitioners in the case. Such defence, unless substantiate on the material on record either by way of independent evidence or in cross examination of any prosecution witness, cannot be accepted. 7. On the question of seizure I am unable to accept that timber, which has been seized from these petitioners who were travelling in the tractor, has been planted on them. No evidence has been led by the petitioners to show that they have been falsely implicated in the case. It is also not established as to why 39 planks of wood would be planted on both these petitioners. 8. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in these petitions, which are dismissed. 9. On the question of sentencing, learned counsel submit that the sentence is excessively harsh. It is now a notorious fact that forest wealth is being depleted, which requires urgent conservation. However, considering the fact that offences have been committed ten years ago and the case is now before this Court after that period, it would be in the fitness of things if the sentence of imprisonment is set aside and each of the accused is directed to pay a sum of ` 25,000/- to the State of H.P. which amount can be used for conservation measures. The deposit shall be made before the learned trial Court within a period of two months from today. It is directed that when such deposit is made, the amount will be released to the State forthwith, in addition to the fine already deposited by each of the petitioners which had remain intact. It is clarified that in case of non-deposit of this amount, both the petitioners shall be taken into custody and sentence imposed shall be duly executed by the learned trial Court forthwith. Petitions stand disposed of.