The High Court of Calcutta, while allowing a criminal revision petition filed against the judgment passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby affirming the judgment that convicted the present petitioner and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for the offense punishable u/s 26(i) (e) (f) of Indian Forest Act 1927, held that Section 72 (2) of the Forest Act does not impose the statutory presumption upon the Court to hold that the statement recorded by the Forest officers during the inquiry would admit to be proved in the subsequent trial.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner was charged under sections 26(1)(e)(f) of the Indian Forest Act 1927. The case proceeded to the court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, where the appellant was convicted and sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. Dissatisfied with the conviction, an appeal was filed before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, upheld the conviction in an order dated April 28, 2021. Consequently, the present revision has been preferred.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the order of conviction passed by the Learned Magistrate is completely beyond the periphery of the law laid down under the Forest Act. The presence of petitioner in the Reserve Forest cannot to be in question. He further argued that there are no independent witnesses in this case. He contended that the Learned Magistrate placed reliance upon the alleged confessional statement of the present petitioner recorded by the PW 1 by his own hand. He argued that the confessional statement is an extra judicial confessional which cannot be a ground for conviction.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the case before the Learned Magistrate has been sufficiently proved against the present petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. So there is no merit to entertain the instant criminal revision.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the Learned Magistrate placed reliance upon the confessional statement of the present petitioner with the observation that the petitioner had admitted his guilt though he denied the same during the framing of charge and his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
The Court observed that Officers/Forest Guards are not the police according to the law, but at the same time before acceptance of a confessional statement, the Court has to inspect whether it was made voluntarily or it was recorded without any inducement or pressure. Section 72 (2) of the Forest Act does not impose the statutory presumption upon the Court to hold that the statement recorded by the Forest officers during the inquiry would admit to be proved in the subsequent trial. The confessional statement, on the basis of which the conviction was recorded by the Learned Magistrate, is not proper.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, allowing the petition, held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offence against the present petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the order of conviction recorded by the Learned Magistrate against the present petitioner and affirmed by the Learned Sessions Judge is illegal and improper, and is set aside.
Case Title: Arabinda Barman v. The State of West Bengal
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta
Case No.: CRR 115 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sourav Ganguly
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Aditi Sankar Chakraborty
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
