CYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The High court reversed the judgment of the Magistrate, First Class, and recorded conviction of the appellants for offences under S. 26 and 41 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 379 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to three months' rigorous imprisonment under each count under the Indian Forest Act and six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution and the defence have some common grounds. It is stated that on the night intervening 28/29/11/1971 Shri R. N. Chaudhri,. the Divisional forest Officer and Shri Ramola, the Assistant Conservator of Forests on prior information collected in two separate groups at Nanda Chauki at Chakrata Road near Dehradun (U. P. ) in order to await the passing of a truck carrying stolen timber. At about" 3. 00 a. m. the offending truck came loaded with wood sleepers and was stopped in which were six accused including the three appellants herein. The others being the owner who is dead and the driver and the cleaner who are absconding. The respective confessions of all the six persons were recorded by the D. F. O. Therein the appellants admitted having engaged a truck on share basis and to have stolen the wood sleepers from a river in the reserve forest in order to effect their sale in Dehradun. This led to the prosecution of the appellants. The prosecution case was supported by the two official witnesses afore named as well as on the basis of the extra judicial confessions recorded. These confessions were retracted by the appellants before the trial court and it was stated that they were mere passengers in the truck and under threat were made to sign these confessions by the Divisional Forest Officer. Besides they raised the plea that the Forest Officer being a police officer, the confessionswere inadmissible having been made to a police officer. The appellants also raised a specific plea before the learned trial Magistrate that there was no independent corroboration supportive of the official version. The trial court, however, did not go into the question of corroboration and rather went on to acquit the appellants on the basis of its understanding of Section 25 of the indian Evidence Act and the role of a Forest Officer as a police officer. The high court, however, upset that view on appeal by the State, but the question posed about the necessity of independent corroboration was overlooked by the high court. The result was that the appellants were convicted.

(3.) We have gone through the judgment under appeal as well as the judgment of the trial court. We have also heard learned counsel. It seems to us that when in the evening Shri Chaudhri, the D. F. O. on receiving information had felt the necessity of blocking the road at Nanda Chauki in the company of a large contingent of forest functionaries, one may not have expected him to have joined some independent witness who could have lent some corroboration at the trial. It could legitimately be said that Shri Chaudhri did not anticipate any particular hour for the truck coming to the blockade at Nanda Chauki. No independent witness could normally be expected to have kept joined for that long period. Still we feel that the necessity of independent corroboration would not have vanished especially when Mr Chaudhri admitted that about a 100 yards away from Nanda Chauki, there was habitation wherefrom somebody could be called to witness the recovery of stolen wood when the truck stood successfully stopped and the accused secured. Besides after the stoppage of the truck, somebody could even be called to witness the recording of confessions. It appears that the forest officials took upon themselves to bear the entire burden of proving the prosecution case. Admittedly such effort was made. Their statements, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to be safe to be acted upon would require some independent corroboration which is not forthcoming. We deem it unsafe therefore to maintain the conviction of the appellants on the uncorroborated version of the forest officials. We should not be taken to be holding as a matter of law that some corroboration was a legal imperative. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case, we record the acquittal of the appellants. Their appeal is, accordingly, allowed.