STATE OF H.P. Vs. TANGIN DURJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Himachal Pradesh feels aggrieved by the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Kalpa, in Case No. 149/3 of 1983, whereby the accused Tangin Durja, has been acquitted of the charge under section 33 of Indian Forest Act.

(2.) THE allegation against the accused, Shri Tangin Durja, is that on 15-1-1982, Forest Guard Bharat Bhushan, and Block Officer Shri Partap Singh, while on patrol duty in Forest Compartment No. 173, found the accused felling 5 deodar trees. A damage report was prepared, statements of witnesses recorded and the challan was thereafter filed in the Court, aforesaid, under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. After the trial, the accused was acquitted by the Court.

(3.) SHRI Kapil Dev Sood, learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that offence against the accused, is not proved and there are major contradictions in the statements of various witnesses cited by the prosecution. These submissions of the learned counsel for the accused, in my opinion, have no substance and have to be rejected in view of the evidence being discussed hereinafter". The statement of PW1, Shri Partap Singh, Block Officer, is that while patrolling. Forest Compartment No. 173 alongwith Forest Guard Bharat Bhushan, Sohan Singh and Padam Lal, on 15-1-1982, the accused met them. The accused had cut 5 deodar trees and after sawing the same he was sitting there on, being asked, the accused admitted the guilt. The Forest Guard prepared a damage report. The timber was taken in possession and as the accused did not pay the compensation for cutting the tress, he states, the present case had to defiled. Be further states in his cross-examination that there is a field of the accused adjacent to the place of occurrence. The accused had not cut trees from his own feels. He further states that the did not make measurement of the area because the trees were within the boundary pillars of the Forest Department and the accused did not say that this land, where the trees had been cut, belonged to him. The other witness is PW(SIC) Shri Padam La, who has been declared hostile. However, he admits his presence in the forest with Block Officer, Partap Singh, PW 1, Forest Guald Bharat Bhushan PW 3, Sohan Lal and one or two persons and availability of sufficient cut timber but says that it was in the land of the accused. He admits his signatures on the damage report Ex. PW 2/A and that the accused had also signed on this report in his presence. He denies that the accused had admitted the fact that he had cut the trees in the Government Forest although, he states, the Forest Guard and the Block Officer were saying that the trees had been cut in the Government forest. In his cross-examination by the defence, he states that the signatures of the accused were taken on the damage report Ex. PW 2/A after the contents of the same were read over to him although the accused had said that he had cut the timber in his own land.