Jharkhand High Court
Buta Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 914 of 2003
1. Buta Yadav
2. Neju Yadav
3. Saran Yadav
4. Jugesh Yadav ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, APP
--------
11/ 20.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal revision application is directed
against the judgment dated 21.07.2003, passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Chatra, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 69 of 2001, preferred
by the petitioners has been dismissed with modification in sentence
and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
19.05.2001 in U.C. Case No. 114 of 1999, passed by the learned
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, whereby the petitioners
were convicted and sentenced to undergo six months RI each for the
offence under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act, has been modified
by the appellate court to the extent that petitioners shall pay fine up
to Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they were
directed to undergo two months SI under Section 33 of Forest Act.
3. The prosecution case in brief is based upon the written
statement of the informant-Rameshwar Prasad Singh, Forest
Guard (P.W.-1), for which complaint has been lodged against the
petitioners under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. After
enquiry, prosecution report has been submitted and cognizance
has been taken against the petitioners; for which the petitioners
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, the
petitioners were found guilty for the offences and they were
convicted.
4. Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned judgment passed by the
learned trial court is not sustainable in the eye of law and the
prosecution has failed to prove this case on the basis of material
on record. Further, the appellate court's judgment is perverse as
the evidence and material on record did not suggest that the
petitioners were cutting woods. He further submits that the
seizure list witness has not been examined and place of
occurrence has also not been proved as such the impugned
judgment requires interference.
5. Learned APP supports the order of the trial court and
submits that the trial court as well as appellate court has given
findings to the effect that the appellants were cutting the wood
which was under the forest land. Learned APP further submits
that both the trial court and the appellate court has given
reasoning for conviction.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the impugned judgment it appears that the learned
appellate court has referred the deposition of Rameshwar Prasad
Singh, who is P.W. 1 and was Forest Guard who consistently
deposed in para 1, 2 and 3 that at the relevant time and place of
occurrence, the Forest Guard found these petitioners were
illegally cutting away the Mahua Tree and on attempt to arrest
they fled away and could not be arrested. However, the wood
were seized. He further referred to the deposition of P.W. 2 who
was also Forest Guard and has tendered the notification under
Section 30 of Indian Forest Act that it was the forest land. Witness
No.3 who was Forester has deposed that he found that one Mahua
tree cut away and he had measured the cut wood of the size of 42
inches circumference and 12 feet long and petitioner failed to
produce any licence nor permit for it.
7. In view of the aforesaid specific findings and looking
to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction this Court refrains
from interfering with the finding of the trial court. Hence, the
instant criminal revision application stands dismissed.
8. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the
court below.
9. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
