Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1079 (JHR)

Dinu Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-10

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State is present. 2. Since, this application is pending since 2005, the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. In this application, the petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 2.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-IX, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 3.6.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in Forest Case No. 16 of 2002 corresponding to T.R. No. 1048 of 2004 convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act and sentencing them to undergo S.I. for six months has been affirmed. 4. The allegation made in the prosecution report is that the Forest Guard has gone on patrolling duty to Kumbharlalo forest on 14.9.2001 and it seems that petitioners were cutting forest land. On seeing the forest guard, the petitioners had managed to flee away. After inspecting the place of occurrence and on inquiring into the matter and on finding the allegation to be true, a prosecution has been launched on the allegation that the petitioners have encroached 6 decimals of forest land causing a loss of Rs. 3,000/- to the Forest Department. 5. In support of the prosecution case, 4 witnesses were examined. P.W. 1-Kameshwar Prasad Sharma is the Forest Guard in Kendua Sub-beat. This witness has stated that when he was on duty with another Forest Guard, he had seen the petitioners cutting earth. He also stated that the petitioners have managed to flee away. It could be detected that the petitioners have encroached about 6 decimals of land of forest area. P.W. 2-Janardan Das has also stated on similar terms. P.W. 3-Baldeo Yadav is the forester who had verified and had found the allegations to be true. This witness has stated that he has found encroachment over 6 decimals of land and after receiving sanction, prosecution report has been submitted. P.W. 4-Krishna Barhi has identified the place of occurrence as forest land as notified under Sections 29, 30 & 31 of the Forest Act. 6. It was the case of the defence that there is a land dispute as a result of which the petitioners have been falsely implicated. P.W. 4-Krishna Barhi has identified the place of occurrence as forest land as notified under Sections 29, 30 & 31 of the Forest Act. 6. It was the case of the defence that there is a land dispute as a result of which the petitioners have been falsely implicated. The defence has mostly relied upon an alleged enmity existing between both the sides. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the State on the other hand has stated that all the prosecution witnesses has supported the case and there is no question of enmity existing between the parties. 8. It appears that the witnesses are all forest officials who have categorically stated about the encroachment of forest land by the petitioners and that they were making a preparation for converting the same into an agricultural land. The version of the defence that there is a previous dispute existing in absence of any document seems to be fallacious. Exhibits reveals that the place of occurrence is indeed a forest land as it was notified by the government and it was identified by the P.W. 4-Krishna Barhi. 9. Thus, the oral as well as documentary evidence on record sufficiently proves the guilt of the petitioners for committing the forest offence and so they were rightly convicted by the learned trial court which was affirmed by the learned appellate court. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is hereby sustained. 10. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners have remained in custody for some time out of a maximum punishment of 6 months S.I. The petitioners are also facing the rigors of the prosecution case for the last more than 16 years. Such circumstances therefore definitely entitle the petitioners for reduction in the period of sentence. Accordingly, the period of sentence is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.