IMPORTANT POINT
Confessions made under the Indian Forest Act must be voluntary and recorded in compliance with established procedural safeguards; failure to adhere to these requirements can lead to the exclusion of such confessions as evidence.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 12/1/2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by applicant/accused no.2 against his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Ss. 26(1)(f) and 41(1) (b) read with Sec. 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1927" for short) awarded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, on 27/2/2013. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on conviction, had sentenced the applicant/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days, on each count, for the offences under Sec. 26(1)(f) and 41(1)(b) read with Sec. 42 of the Act of 1927.

BACKGROUND FACTS :-

2. On 5/5/2005 in the evening, RFO Sanjay Pardikar (PW5) had received secret information that teakwood was being transported from Hiwarkhed in a jeep. He conveyed the said information to RFO Ramrao Khopde (PW2) and instructed him to take necessary steps. PW2 Ramrao Khopde and Forest Guard S.P. Raut (PW3) went to Akot by government vehicle. One M.G. Gadge, Round Officer Bordi and S.G. Gosavi, Forest Guard accompanied them. They went towards Hiwarkhed. On reaching Hiwarkhed, they came to know that some persons had loaded teak wood in a jeep and went towards Akola. PW2 and his team, therefore, came to Akola. They took search of the jeep. They found a jeep bearing registration No. MH-30/E-8929 parked near Jangam math area, Lakadganj, Akola. 4-5 persons were standing by the side of the jeep. They apprehended four persons. The driver ran away from the spot. They carried out inspection of the jeep. They found that teak wood was concealed in the jeep. They took those four persons in custody. PW2 drew the spot panchanama. They carried the accused and the jeep with Teak wood to the Range Forest Office. Teak wood was unloaded from the jeep. Teak wood was cut by axe and hacksaw. It was freshly cut teak wood. They found 21 teak wood logs admeasuring 0.911 sq. meter. Teak wood and jeep were seized in the crime in presence of the panchas. PW2 registered the offence being Crime No. 321/6 on 6/5/2005. Custodial interrogation of the accused was carried out. The information provided by the accused led to recovery of 12 more teak wood logs. PW5 made enquiry with the accused. Accused confessed the crime before PW5. PW5 recorded their confessional statements. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

3. Prosecution examined in all five witnesses to bring home the guilt. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced all the accused. The appeal qua accused nos.1, 3 and 4 was allowed and they were acquitted. Conviction and sentence of accused no.2/applicant was maintained. He is, therefore, before this Court.

4. I have heard Ms. Poonam Pisurde, learned advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit R. Chutke, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non- applicant/State. Perused the record and proceedings.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant/accused submitted that in this case there is no independent witness to corroborate evidence of the Forest Officers. Learned advocate took me through the evidence of the witnesses and pointed out that there are material inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses and therefore, the evidence does not inspire confidence. Learned advocate pointed out that there are major lacunae in the investigation and on the basis of those lacunae, a doubt is created about the case of the prosecution. There is no cogent and convincing evidence to establish conscious possession of the seized teak wood by the accused. Learned advocate further submitted that the place from where teak trees were cut, was not traced out by the Forest Officers. Learned advocate submitted that confessional statements of the accuse