Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 428 (JHR)

Nandlal Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-01

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Deo, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 25.06.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No.310 of 1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Hazaribagh in G. Case No.458 of 1995 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of eight months has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same was proved by the evidence of P.W-2. There is no eye witness to corroborate the allegation against the petitioners for carrying on cultivation activities in forest land. It has also been stated that no documentary evidence could be produced to show that the same was cultivated by them. Learned counsel has forwarded an argument in the alternative that if this court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence awarded to the petitioners be reduced substantially considering the fact that the petitioners are facing rigours of the prosecution case since the year 1995 and have remained in custody for more than a month. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. It appears that prosecution report was submitted by P.W-1 in which it was alleged that forest guard has found the petitioners cultivating the forest land after cleaning the forest. After the prosecution report was submitted by P.W-1, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and the trial proceeded. In course of trial, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W-1 Shailendra Kumar Srivastava is the Forester who have received the offence report from P.W-2 Basudeo Gope and had thereafter went to the place of occurrence for preparing the survey map. After preparing prosecution report and after taking sanction from the Judicial Forest Officer, the same was filed before the learned court below. P.W-1 Shailendra Kumar Srivastava is the Forester who have received the offence report from P.W-2 Basudeo Gope and had thereafter went to the place of occurrence for preparing the survey map. After preparing prosecution report and after taking sanction from the Judicial Forest Officer, the same was filed before the learned court below. This witness on inspection had found two acres of land damaged and plants of acacia damaged which was planted in the year 1993 and the loss which was caused to the forest department is to the tune of Rs.4000/-. P.W-2 is the forest guard who had detected the offence and has stated that the petitioners and others had taken part in ploughing plot nos. 970 and 564 by planting the forest land. This witness has submitted the offence report to P.W-2. This witness has further stated that he had not identified the petitioners but had subsequently come to know all the petitioners from one Baleshwar. This witness has also stated that P.W-1 had remained with him for 15 minutes and all the accused persons were there. P.W-3 is the formal witness who has proved the notification i.e. exhibit-5 and exhibit-6. The evidence of P.W-2 who is the forest guard seems to be trustworthy, so far as the identification of the petitioners is concerned with respect to the involvement in cleaning the forest land and cultivating the said land. The defence has failed to extract from P.W-2 any evidence which would discard his testimony. The evidence of P.W-2 is therefore, consistent with respect to the identification and manner of occurrence. 6. On consideration of the fact that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the learned court below have convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced them accordingly. The learned appellate court has also perused the record as well as the evidence of the witnesses and the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution to affirm the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court. 7. Thus, there being no reason to conclude otherwise, the challenge which has been made by the petitioners to the order of conviction is concerned fails. 7. Thus, there being no reason to conclude otherwise, the challenge which has been made by the petitioners to the order of conviction is concerned fails. However, with respect to the sentence passed against the petitioners are concerned, the petitioners are facing rigours of the prosecution case since the year 1995 and have remained in custody for more than a month. Considering the nature of offence against the petitioners, the period of custody undergone by them and long pendency of the case definitely entitle the petitioners for reduction in the sentence imposed upon them which is modified to the period already undergone. 8. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Application dismissed.