Allowed

Pratap Kumar Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Jan 2014CR. REV./395/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged convictions and sentences imposed for an offence under the Forest Act. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside successive judgments due to the prosecution's failure to prove ownership of the seized saw mill and logs or link them to the absent petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Successive judgments set aside; petitioners discharged from liability.

Pratap Kumar Yadav and Anr. Vs State of Bihar — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Revision No.395 of 2003

¶3

=========================================================== 1. PRATAP KUMAR YADAV, SON OF JAGDAMBI YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-ADAMPUR, PS,-NAYA RAM NAGAR, DISTRICT-MUNGER. 2. ARUN KUMAR YADAV @ MANOJ KUMAR YADAV, SON OF SAUDAGAR PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-HASANGANJ, POLICE STATION-KASIM BAZAAR, DISTRICT-MUNGER. .... .... PETITIONER/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S =========================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the State : Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP

¶4

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI CAV JUDGMENT

¶5

Date: 07-01-2014

¶6

1. In spite of giving ample opportunity, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not turn up and so the instant revision petition has been fixed for judgment after hearing learned counsel for the Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶7

2. Both the petitioners, namely, Pratap Kumar Yadav, Arun Kumar Yadav @ Manoj Kumar Yadav have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 33 of the Forest Act and each of them has been directed to undergo S.I. for six months vide judgment dated 23-01-2002 passed by Sri Ramashray, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Munger in Complaint Case No.274C³ of 1998 which found affirmed vide judgment dated 13.06.2003 by Additional Sessions Judge, IXth, Munger in Cr. Appeal No.21 of 2002 / 6 of 2002.

¶8

3. Tuleshwar Sah (PW-1), Forest Guard filed application

¶9

¶10

before Superior Authority on 24-03-1998 disclosing stealthily running of Saw Mill as well as storage of forest wood on account thereof, complainant, Mahendra Prasad along with other forest officials conducted raid and seized 65 logs of wood as well as the saw mill for which complaint petition was filed whereupon trial had commenced and concluded convicting and sentencing both the petitioners, also found confirmed in appeal on account of which instant petition has been filed.

¶11

4. From the lower court, it is evident that altogether seven PWs have been examined on behalf of prosecution to support its case along with exhibits of documents. The grounds so taken by the petitioners in memo of revision, evidences along with the successive judgments have minutely been gone through. After giving parallel scrutiny thereof, the successive judgments are not at all found fit for concurrence because of the fact that the learned successive courts below failed to identify inherent defect persisting in the prosecution case with regard to any sort of connection in between the seizure of 65 logs, saw mill with theses two petitioners who were not at all present at the time of conduction of raid. Apart from this, PW-6 is the Bhujangi Paswan, Chowkidar of the locality who had disclosed that during conduction of raid, the police officials have also arrived who after having a short stay left the place. He had further deposed that

¶12

¶13

the saw mill was not in a running condition.

¶14

5. Now coming to the oral evidence of other PWs, it is clearly evident there from that they have gone at the place of occurrence being a member of raiding party. PW-1 had said that he had seen 65 logs of wood in the surrounding of saw mill at a distance of 1-2 hand. PW-2 in para-3 had said that he had arrived at place of occurrence at 03:00 P.M. He is unable to disclose the boundary. He is unable to disclose from where seizure was made. It will be disclosed by the forester. PW-3 in para-3 had disclosed that saw mill is surrounded by brick built boundary wall and seizure was made within the fencing. PW-4 in para-2 of his cross-examination had said that saw mill was in open place. Logs were scattered hither and thither. Some near saw mill and some in the field. PW-5 in para-2 of his cross-examination had disclosed that logs were kept in campus North-South to the mill. PW-7 had in para-6 of his cross-examination that saw mill was in open place. Logs were scattered hither and thither. Not only this, the complainant Mahindra Prasad has been examined nor any explanation has been furnished on behalf of prosecution. Apart from this, right from complaint petition it is evident that none of the petitioners was present at the place of occurrence nor any of the witness had suggested during course of evidence regarding ownership of petitioners over the seized articles.

¶15

¶16

Furthermore, the inconsistency having apparent amongst the evidence of PW, are to be seen with suspicion with regard to their presence of the P.O. during course of conduction of so alleged raid.

¶17

6. Thus, from the evidence of the prosecution witness, it is apparent that prosecution could not be able to prove the ownership of saw mill as well as logs and on account thereof there happens to be absurdity in recording the judgment of conviction, sentence as well as judgment of confirmation by the appellate court. Hence, successive judgments are set aside. Petition is allowed. Both the petitioners are on bail hence are discharged from its liability.

¶18

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)

¶19

PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 7^th day of Jan., 2014. PRAKASH NARAYAN/A.F.R.

Pratap Kumar Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap Kumar Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Braj Kishore Upadhyay Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna and O

Anupama Saha Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police and Ors.

Mahaanand Mandal Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Nitish Mahto @ Kamlesh Kumar Rashmi Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Surat Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar

Meena Devi and Ors. Vs State of Bihar