Criminal revision dismissed. Court upheld conviction and modified sentence for illegal mining under Sections 33/42 of the Indian Forest Act, finding lower courts correctly concluded guilt.
Criminal Revision Application dismissed; pending I.A. disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1014 of 2008
Ashok Sao @ Ashok Sah ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party --------CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P. ---------
05/03.04.2023
Heard the parties.
The petitioner Ashok Sao @ Ashok Sah has preferred this criminal revision application against the judgment dated 10.05.2007, passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned Sessions Judge, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No.51/2006, whereby and wherein, the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, affirmed the judgment of conviction and modified the order of sentence dated 21.11.2006, passed by Sri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Latehar in connection with C.F. Case No. 39/2003 T.R. No.160/2006, holding the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 33/42 of the Indian Forest Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a term of two years for each of the offences under Sections 33/42 of the Indian Forest Act. The learned appellate court reduced the sentence and directed the appellant to undergo R.I. For six months for each of the offences. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The case of the prosecution is that on 30.05.2003, the informant and other members of Forest Department where on patrolling duty, when they reached near Fulwaria Protected Forest, they saw several persons illegally mining coal. It has been stated that only one person was identified by the prosecution party. This petitioner is named in the offence report as the person, who was identified by the prosecution party.
The complainant Chandradeep Ram has been examined as P.W.6. He has supported the allegation, as made out in the prosecution report. He has stated that on 30.05.2003 at about 8:00 am, he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ram Pravesh Singh, Sukhdeo Mochi, Rajendra Prajapati, Suresh Pandey and Brij Nandan Sah. When they reached near Fulwaria Protected Forest, they saw several persons illegally mining coal at forest
-2-
area. On seeing the police party, the accused persons fled away. Ten tons of illegally mined coal was recovered at the place of occurrence. He claimed to have identified the petitioner in the dock. In his crossexamination, he has stated that he had seen the occurrence from ½ K.M, he has identified the petitioner from behind.
Brij Nandan Sah P.W.1, Sukhdeo Mochi P.W.2, Ram Pravesh Singh P.W.3, Rajendra Prajapati P.W.4 and Suresh Pandey P.W.5 all were members of patrolling party. They have corroborated the case of the informant. The complainant Chandradeep Ram has stated that on 30.05.2003 at about 8:00 am, they were on patrolling duty, they found some people were illegally mining the coal in Fulwaria Protected Forest. On seeing the informant party, the accused persons fled away. Ten tons of illegally mined coal was recovered from the place of occurrence. All these witnesses claimed to have identified the petitioner in the dock.
All these witnesses have been cross-examined at length. Brij Nandan Sah P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that the illegally mined coal was seized at the place of occurrence. Sukhdeo Mochi P.W.2 has stated in his cross-examination that he is not aware as to where the seized coal is stored at present. Ram Pravesh Singh P.W.3 in his crossexamination has stated that his statement was not recorded as a witness. Rajendra Prajapati P.W.4 has stated in his cross-examination that the members of patrolling party were going on patrolling duty together.
Suresh Pandey P.W.5 has stated in his cross-examination that he is not aware whether Fulwaria forest area has been notified as protected forest or not. There is nothing in cross-examination of these witnesses to doubt their veracity.
Petitioner was identified by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, while he was running away from the place of occurrence, on seeing the patrolling party. The accused persons were illegally mining the coal in protected forest area. Ten tons illegally mined coal were seized at the place of occurrence.
Considering the aforesaid fact, I am of the opinion that both the learned trial court as well as the learned Appellate Court have rightly come to a conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner Ashok Sao @ Ashok
-3-
Sah. The sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the same does not require any interfere.
This Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
Ashok Sao @ Ashok Sah
The State of Jharkhand
Ambuj Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
