The court emphasized the importance of proving the voluntariness and reliability of confessional statements and the admissibility of evidence under Section 72 of the Indian Forest Act.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

1. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated April 28, 2021 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipurduar in connection with criminal appeal No. 9 of 2011 thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 16th August 2011 passed by the Learned Magistrate 3rd Court Alipurduar thereby convicted the present petitioner and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of 06 months for the offence punishable u/s 26(i) (e) (f) of Indian Forest Act 1927 and to pay a fine of Rs 500/- in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for a term of 30 days in connection with Cr(Forest) Case No. 293 of 2009 corresponding TR No. 1104 of 2009.

2. The brief fact of the case is that on the basis of a Prosecution Report of one Ranjit Kumar Roy, Deputy Ranger, Forest CR(F) Case No. 293 of 2009 was initiated against the present appellant u/s 26(1) (e) (f) of Indian Forest Act 1927.

3. The said case was transferred to the court of Learned Judicial 3rd Magistrate court Alipurduar for disposal and upon a completion of the trial and after hearing the parties the Learned Magistrate convicted the present petitioner sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of 06 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- i.d. S.I. for 30 days for the offence punishable u/s 26(1)(e)(f) of the Indian Forest Act 1927.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of conviction an appeal was preferred before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipurduar and the same was registered as criminal appeal No. 9 of 2011.

5. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned, after hearing the parties has passed the impugned order dated 28.04.2021 thereby affirmed the order of conviction passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate.

6. Hence this appeal.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the order of conviction is not sustainable in the eye of law. He submits that the (POR) alleged inter-alia that on 16.08.2009 at about 5:00 pm the complainant along with the two forest guards were performing patrolling duty over the Reserve Forest Area of CR-4 Comptt. of Tiyamari Beat under North Raidak Range of Buxa Tiger Reserve (e) division. During the patrolling they heard the sound of cutting trees inside the said compartment and they followed the sound, on reaching the place of occurrence they found one person was cutting a Teak Tree. By the time they had reached the place of occurrence, the person had cut half portion of the Teak Tree but had not completed it. They caught the person red handed who disclosed his identity. On being asked the petitioner failed to produce any valid document in support of his entering in the Reserve Forest as well as cutting Teak Tree. Thereafter, they arrested the petitioner, seized some articles by preparing seizure list. Thereafter they brought the appellant to the Beat Office. On interrogation, the appellant confessed his guilt and his statement was recorded. After completion of formalities he produced the appellant to the Court.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the order of conviction passed by the Learned Magistrate is completely beyond the periphery of the law laid down under the Forest Act. Actually, during the trial it has revealed that the present petitioner is the resident of village Dhanbati. One had to cross the forest area for the purpose of ingress or egress to their village. The village is situated in-side a reserve forest and the petitioner is the resident of forest village. Several disputes are going on between the guard of forest and the villagers of a forest village. On the above circumstances the presence of petitioner in the Reserve Forest cannot to be in question. He further argued that the Learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order of conviction on the basis of thre