DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present criminal appeal, the appellant seeks to set aside the judgment and order dated 15.05.2004, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge / II F.T.C., Nainital, in Sessions Trial no. 37 of 2003, State vs Darshan Singh and others, whereby accused -appellant was convicted under Section 379 IPC and Section 26 of Indian Forest Act. Convict -appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - under Section 379 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict was directed to undergo imprisonment for further period of three months. Accusedappellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months alongwith a fine of Rs.500/ - under Section 26 of Indian Forest Act. In default of payment of fine, convict was directed to undergo imprisonment for further period of one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the trial court.

(2.) FOUR accused persons, including the appellant, were allegedly found chopping sheesham tree. When the forest officials refrained them from doing so, they (accused persons) allegedly fired upon them (forest officials). Forest officials too fired in retaliation. Members of none of the parties sustained any injury in the incident. Accused persons were, therefore, acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 411 IPC. Three accused persons, despite chase by the forest officials, succeeded in fleeing away. One of them, i.e., present appellant was arrested on the spot with the timber and saw machine. Evidence was offered to show that he was, in fact, arrested by the forest officials alongwith incriminating articles.

(3.) PW 1 Mohan Singh Negi and PW2 Ravindra Singh, beat watcher, proved the same. A description of their oral testimony has been given by the trial court in the impugned judgment. This Court, therefore, need not repeat the contents of the examination -in -chief and crossexamination of PW1 and PW2 for the sake of brevity. This fact, therefore, is not under dispute and is proved, that the appellant was arrested on the spot alongwith timber and saw machine.