TANUJ KUMAR @ RIMPI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 3.11.1999 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in S.T. No. 272 of 1995, State v. Tanuj Kumar @ Rimpi and Ors.. In the said trial, eight accused persons were tried for the offence of Sections 395 and 412 Indian Penal Code along with Sections 26/41 of the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). At the conclusion of the trial, all the accused persons were acquitted from the charge of Section 395 Indian Penal Code and 26/41 of the Act but the Appellant/accused Tanuj Kumar @ Rimpi was held guilty for the offence of Section 411 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo two years' R.I.

(2.) THE background facts of the entire incident are that on 25/26.8.1993 at about 3:30 AM, when Sri Jagdish Chandra, Forest Guard along with Sri Diwan Singh, Plantation Chaukidar was patrolling in the forest, they heard some noise of loading the logs of wood. They proceeded in the direction wherefrom the voice was being aired. They saw a truck whereupon the wood logs were being loaded. Those wood logs were of Sagon (a special species of the Tree) and the number of the Truck was DL -1 -L/1140. At the spot, they recognized 12 accused persons by name, but could not identify three others. In total, there were 15 accused persons. The Forest Guard along with Chaukidar, named above, tried to prevent them but one of the accused Indra Singh Fauzi and other Sri Tanuj Kumar @ Rimpi (present Appellant) threatened them to kill by showing countrymade pistol.

(3.) LATER , on the information supplied by one of the accused, named Ghasitu @ Chela, this wood was recovered from the residence of the Appellant at his house No. 46, located at Raja Road, city Dehradun. From that house, 19 Sagon woods were recovered, which were also identified by the forest officials as the forest produce. The FIR was lodged on 22.10.1993 at 4:30 PM by Gopal Krishan Rana, a forest official. Investigation was made and the chargesheet was submitted only against eight persons including the Appellant. After taking the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Appellant has been convicted, as aforementioned, whereagainst this appeal has been filed.