Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 638 (JHR)

Duli Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-04-04

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.2001 passed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh in C. Case No. 503 of 1990 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 33 of Indian Forest Act and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 6 months each has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story as would appear from the report is that the wood was being cut and the petitioners were apprehended on the spot and there was some recovery of Sakhua from the possession of the petitioners. Based on the aforesaid allegations, an offence report was submitted and after inquiry, prosecution report was submitted before the court of learned C.J.M., Hazaribagh pursuant to which cognizance was taken under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 4. The learned trial court having found the petitioner guilty of offence under section 33 of Indian Forest Act convicted and sentenced them to undergo 6 months R.I. in C. Case No. 503 of 1990. The appeal preferred by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1999 was dismissed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh on 30.6.2001. 5. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner the no offence is made out against the petitioners. None of the prosecution witnesses has supported the prosecution case. He further submitted in the alternative that if this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence may be suitably modified, considering the fact that the petitioners are facing the rigours of the prosecution case since year 1990 and have also some time remained in custody. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer. 7. It appears that in course of trial, 5 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Ratan Kumar Pandey is a forest guard who has stated that he along with P.W.2 and P.W.4 had gone to the forest, where he had seen the accused persons cutting the wood from the protected forest. 7. It appears that in course of trial, 5 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Ratan Kumar Pandey is a forest guard who has stated that he along with P.W.2 and P.W.4 had gone to the forest, where he had seen the accused persons cutting the wood from the protected forest. This witness has also stated that the petitioners were apprehended whereas others managed to flee away. He further submitted that 12 pieces of Sakhua logs were found which was seized and the seizure list was prepared which was marked as Exhibit 1. The version of the P.W. 1 was supported by the P.Ws. 2 and 4 who have also accompanied the P.W.1 in the protected forest. P.W. 3 - Janardan Prasad Srivastav has received the offence report alongwith the seizure list and he had prepared the map of the place of occurrence. This witness has deposed that in course of inquiry, he had found 52 logs of trees which were cut. P.W.5 is a formal witness who has deposed that the publication of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (Exhibit 6) was served by beating of drums. It appears from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 that the petitioners were rightly convicted for the offence under section 33 of Indian Forest Act and were sentenced accordingly. 8. The learned appellate court has also discussed the materials available on record before affirming the judgment of convicting and sentence. In such view of the matter therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners. 9. However, so far as the period of sentence is concerned, it appears that they are facing the rigours of prosecution since 1990 and they had remained some time in custody. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, the period of sentence of the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone by them. 11. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence.