Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1431 (JHR)

Bhuneshwar Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-08-10

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Azimuddin, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 17.02.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1997 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra, whereby and where under, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23.04.1997 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chatra, in U.C. Case No. 505 of 1995 (T.R. No. 622 of 1997), convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 06 months, has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that when the forest guard along with another forest guard were on patrolling duty, arrived at Pachotri protected forest, they had detected that the petitioners were ploughing the field, but they managed to flee away and on inspection it was detected that encroachment was made upon the protected forest. On the basis of offence report, the place was inspected and sketch map was also prepared and there after it was detected that Pachotri protected forest was encroached to the tune of 03 acres. After cognizance was taken, trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial 04 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1, forest guard, Siyaram Singh has stated he was on patrolling duty along with forest guard Lalit Prasad (P.W. 2) on 03.08.1994 when they saw the petitioners were illegally ploughing the forest land. He further deposed that the matter was reported to the forester, who inspected the place and found the allegation to be true and thereafter had submitted prosecution report. P.W. 2, Lalit Prasad, another forest guard, has also deposed on similar lines to what has been stated by P.W. 1. P.W. 3, Rambali Pandey is forester who has proved the prosecution report (Ext. 3) as well as sketch map of the place of occurrence. This witness has stated that on receiving the offence report he had gone to the place of occurrence along with the informant and had inspected and surveyed the land and detected that 03 acres of protected forest land were encroached by the petitioner. P.W. 4, Mahadeo Sao, who is also a forest guard has proved the report Ext. This witness has stated that on receiving the offence report he had gone to the place of occurrence along with the informant and had inspected and surveyed the land and detected that 03 acres of protected forest land were encroached by the petitioner. P.W. 4, Mahadeo Sao, who is also a forest guard has proved the report Ext. 4 relating to the publication of the Hindi translation of notification issued under section 30 of the Indian Forest Act. 5. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the witnesses being the employees of the forest department are interested witnesses and therefore their testimony cannot be believed. Learned counsel further submits that the identification of the petitioners is also doubtful since none of them were arrested at the spot. Learned counsel furthering his argument has submitted that in the alternative if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be modified, considering the fact that the petitioners are facing rigours of criminal case since 1995 and had remained in custody for a month. 6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer of the petitioners and has supported the impugned judgments. 7. It appears that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have stated that they had seen the petitioners, as ploughing the forest land and who subsequently fled away leaving the articles. P.W. 3 have inspected the place of occurrence and it was detected that 03 acres of protected forest land were being encroached by the petitioners and they were cultivating the same. Ext. 4 is with respect to the notification issued under section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, which proved that the land in question was under a protected forest. Merely because the prosecution witnesses are the forest officials, the same cannot dilute the prosecution case in view of their consistent evidence. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable under section 33 Indian Forest Act, which has subsequently been affirmed in appeal. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction is hereby sustained. 9. However, with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners have been facing rigours of the prosecution case since 1995 and they have remained in custody for a month. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction is hereby sustained. 9. However, with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners have been facing rigours of the prosecution case since 1995 and they have remained in custody for a month. In such circumstances, therefore, the order of sentence passed against them is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioners. 10. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence awarded to the petitioners.