ARJUNA SAHU AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner Arjun Sahu has been convicted under Section 332 and sentenced to R.I. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - in default to undergo R.I. for one month. The Petitioner Bhagirathi Behera has been convicted under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/. in default to further R.I. for 15 days.

(2.) P .W. 1 Purnachandra Sahu is a forest guard at Jamdehi. On 16 -2 -1963 Srinath Gan (p.w. 5) another forest guard informed P.W. 1 that some trees had been cut and removed from block No. 2 in Rakghi reserve forest and requested him to assist him in seizing and hammering the stumps. P.W. 1 accordingly accompanied P.W. 5 and put hammer marks on about 14 stumps by manner No. 86. On the way, P.W. 1 noticed near the Jamdehi bridge that 16 logs of wood of the species of Asan, Mahul, Dha and Char each about 2 in girth lying near the said bridge. He then reported this matter to the forester Chhabil Kumar Sahu, P.W. 3 on 18 -2 -1963. Thereafter P.W. 3 accompanied by P.W. 1 and some others went near the bridge which was being constructed by a contractor, Uchhab Pradhan. Not finding Uchhab at the spot, the forest staff enquired of his manager Subhas Chandra Das if they had got the permit for felling the trees lying at the spot. Having received the answer in negative, P.W. 1 under the direction of P.W. 3 put hammer marks on about 118 logs of the above -stated species that were lying there. The labourers who accompanied the forest officials were asked to shift the logs to some other place so that they may\be kept in the custody of some person. But as accused Bhagirathi shouted with a threatening attitude, the party left the place out of fear. At about 2 p. m. on the same day P.W. 3 and some others went near the bridge when P.W. 1 directed one of the labourers, P.W. 7 to remove the logs when P.W. 7 was trying to remove one of the logs, accused Bhagirathi assaulted him with first blows and when P.W. 1 was assisting P.W. 4 to carry another log, he was given a push as a result of which he fell down and got an injury on his hand. Thereafter information was lodged at the police station and on the requisition of the police P.W. 1 was medically examined by the doctor, P.W. 6. After investigation charge -sheet was submitted against the Petitioners who were tried, convicted and sentenced as above and on appeal the conviction and sentence having been upheld by the Sessions Judge, the Petitioners have come up with this revision.

(3.) THAT a number of Ballis were seized is not denied by the accused persons. Their contention is that both of them are the servants of the contractor who was in charge of the construction of the bridge and that the logs in question had been used in the construction of the bridge. When P.W. 1 and his men wanted to remove the logs, they (Petitioners) requested them to approach the contractor, but instead of doing so they insisted on removal of the logs without the consent of the contractor and that the allegations of assault either on P.W. 1 or P.W. 7 were false. Thus, the defence partly accepted the prosecution story that P.W. 1 and his party seized the logs and attempted to remove the same. The only difference in their contentions being that while the prosecution case was that both p.ws. 1 and 7 were assaulted, the case of the defence was that they requested the forest officials to approach the contractor and not to remove the logs.