Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 639 (JHR)

Babuni Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-04-04

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, Mr. Rajnish Vardhan, learned A.P.P., is present. 2. Since this case was admitted in the year 2001 and more than fifteen years have lapsed, this case is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. This application is directed against the judgment dated 14.08.2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 111 of 1994/97 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G. Case No. 578 of 1992 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 33 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- has been affirmed. 4. It appears that while on patrolling duty on 31.11.1993 in Arhara forest the Forest Guard, Gupteshwar Pandey, had seen that the accused persons cutting and collecting trees. The petitioner no. 1 was apprehended whereas the rest managed to flee away from the forest area where several roots portion of the cutting trees were found. An enquiry was conducted by the forester and after preparing a map of the place of occurrence the prosecution report was filed which led to taking of cognizance by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. Substance of accusation was explained on 23.04.1994 and the trial proceeded. Since the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and were sentenced accordingly. 5. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 111 of 1994/97 was also dismissed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh on 14.08.2001. 6. It appears that in course of trial four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 7. P.W. - 1 and P.W. - 2 are the officials witnesses who were on patrolling duty and who had seen the petitioners cutting the trees. It has been disclosed by these witnesses that the petitioners were chased and the petitioner no. 1 was apprehended whereas the other petitioners had managed to flee away. 7. P.W. - 1 and P.W. - 2 are the officials witnesses who were on patrolling duty and who had seen the petitioners cutting the trees. It has been disclosed by these witnesses that the petitioners were chased and the petitioner no. 1 was apprehended whereas the other petitioners had managed to flee away. Both P.W. - 1 and P.W. - 2 had identified the petitioners as the persons who were involved in committing forest offence. It further appears that several logs of Sal and Khair were also seized and the root portion of the cut trees were also found. 8. Since there has been consistent evidence on behalf of the prosecution more specifically P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. The learned appellate court has also on proper appreciation of the materials available on record dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise the order of conviction passed against the petitioners is, hereby, sustained. 9. However, with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners have remained for sometime in custody. It further appears that the criminal case was instituted in the year 1992 and the petitioners are facing the rigours of prosecution case for more than two decades. 10. Considering the aforesaid scenario the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 11. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.