Arabinda Barman vs State of West Bengal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1491

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.
Arabinda Barman – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
CRR 115 of 2021
Decided On : 08-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sourav Ganguly, Adv., Ms. Deblina Ray, Adv., Ms. Rishita Chakraborty, Adv., Mr. Gopal Roy, Adv., Mr. Abhisekh Sarkar Adv
For the State : Mr. Aditi Sankar Chakraborty, Adv., Mr. Abhijit Sarkar Adv.

Headnote:(A) Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 26(1)(e)(f) - Confession admissibility - The criminal revision challenged convictions for cutting a Teak Tree in a Reserve Forest, basing findings on questionable confessional statements. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, leading to this appeal. (Paras 1, 3, 22, 23)

(B) Confessional Statements - Reliability - The court found the reliance on extra-judicial confession defective; such statements should be voluntary and uncoerced. The prosecution's failure to corroborate diminished credibility. (Paras 19-21)

(C) Legal Interpretation - The court clarified that Section 72(2) of the Act does not impose a presumption of admissibility for confessions recorded by Forest Officers without due process. (Paras 20-22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of cutting a Teak Tree, apprehended during patrols in the Reserve Forest with no valid documentation. A confession was recorded post-arrest, lacking corroboration and with the prosecution presenting no independent witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The conviction was set aside as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt; the court questioned the validity of the confessional statement and the circumstances surrounding its admission.

Issues: The primary issues were the validity of the confessional statement and whether the evidence sufficiently supported the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that reliance on an uncorroborated, potentially coerced confessional statement was inappropriate, citing evidentiary inadequacies and interpreting statutory provisions.

Result: The criminal revision is allowed; conviction set aside, petitioner acquitted.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and conviction details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments against the conviction based on evidentiary issues. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's analysis of the confessional statement's validity. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. evidentiary standards under the indian evidence act. (Para 15)
5. order of acquittal issued, reversing previous conviction. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

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 Magistrate 3rd 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