The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and if the guilt of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, they must be exonerated.

U.C. Dhyani, J.

Since the factual matrix and the principles of law governing the field in the above Government Appeals are the same, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment and order for the sake of brevity and convenience.

2) Government Appeal No. 162 of 2002, captioned as State vs. Gaje Pal Singh and others, is being treated as leading case.

3) Accused-respondents were challaned by Forest Range Officer, Ukhimath Range, Guptkashi for the offences punishable under Section 26(1)(h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and under Sections 27(3) and 29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Complaints were filed by the Forest Range Officer with the allegations contained therein, that the accused-respondents constructed cowsheds and dwelling houses within the Reserve Forest. Not only the sanctity of the temple was jeopardized, but there was encroachment into the forest land as well as Musk Deer Sanctuary. When the Forest Department directed the accused-respondents to remove the encroachments, they refrained from doing so. The complaints were therefore, instituted for punishing the accused-respondents and for removing the unauthorized constructions made in the Reserve Forest.

4) Accused-respondents were summoned to face the trial. Their statements were taken. They pleaded not guilty to the allegations and claimed trial. They stated that they have not made unauthorized constructions in the Reserve Forest. They also stated that the constructions were raised by their ancestors.

5) PW1 Nathi Singh, Forest Guard, and PW2 Rajendra Prasad Dimri, Forester, were examined on behalf of the complainant-Forest Department. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused-respondents under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they did not construct cowsheds/dwelling houses in the Reserve Forest. They also said that the constructions in question were raised before issuance of Notification declaring the said land as Reserve Forest. It was reiterated by them that those constructions were raised by their ancestors. No evidence was given in defence.

6) After considering the evidence on record, learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, vide impugned judgment and order, exonerated the accused-respondents of the allegations levelled against them. Aggrieved against the impugned judgments and orders, present Government Appeals were preferred by the State.

7) The question before learned trial court was, as to whether the accused-respondents raised constructions, and thereby made encroachments, either in the form of cowsheds or dwelling houses, in the Reserved Forest or not?

8) PW1 inspected the place of alleged unauthorized construction and prepared Forest Form H-2. PW2 also inspected the place of alleged unauthorized construction and prepared his inquiry report alongwith site plan. PW1 said that he found encroachments/unauthorized constructions raised by the accused-respondents in the Reserve Forest. The accused-respondents were asked to remove the constructions, but they refused to do so. PW1 proved Forest Form H-2. PW1 also said that he was posted in the Forest Range Office since 19th September 1998, and also said in his examination-in-chief that he saw the constructions raised by the accused-respondents. He, however, could not divulge the definite date(s) of such constructions. PW2 admitted in the cross-examination that he did not see anybody raising such constructions. Ext. Ka-7 was placed before PW1. Notification dated 10th March, 1920, issued by the Forest Department, Government of United Provinces, indicated certain land specified in the annexed Schedule ‘A’ to the Notification, as Reserve Forest, under the Indian Forest Act (VII of 1878). The period fixed by the Indian Forest Act, 1978, for presentation of claims to rights in the lands annexed thereto expired. Therefore, it was notified vide Notification dated 10th March, 1920, that the villages named in the Schedule shall continue to have the said rights to the extent