Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri Rangini Debnath - Petitioners
Vs
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P.No.92 of 2013
Decided on : 07-04-2016
Illegal Felling - Indian Forest Act - Section 26(1)(f) - Summary: The court discussed the accusation of illegal felling of trees in the Rowa Sanctuary under Section 26(1)(f) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The defense argued that the accusation should apply to specified forests under the Indian Forest Act, not a wild life sanctuary. The prosecution contended that the sanctuary fell under the reserved forest and presented evidence to support this. The court found that the identification of the accused was shrouded in doubt and the nature of the Rowa forest was not conclusively proven, leading to the acquittal of the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of illegally felling trees in the Rowa Sanctuary, leading to their conviction under Section 26(1)(f) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The judgment was challenged in the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the identification of the accused was shrouded in doubt and the nature of the Rowa forest was not conclusively proven, leading to the acquittal of the petitioners.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the Rowa forest and the identification of the accused as the offenders who felled the trees illegally.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the identification of the accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt and the nature of the Rowa forest was not conclusively proven, leading to the acquittal of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The petitioners were acquitted from the substance of accusation on benefit of doubt.
Heard Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State.
2. This is a petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order dated 17.07.2013 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar whereby the judgment and order dated 24.05.2013 delivered in CR Case No.282 of 2010 (Forest) by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura was affirmed. The appeal being Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2013 was dismissed without any interference by the judgment and order dated 24.05.2013.
3. The genesis of the prosecution is rooted in the complaint filed by one Chitta Ranjan Debnath, In-Charge, Divisional Forest Protection Party, (FPP, in short), in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dharmanagar, North Tripura which was received by the Court on 09.11.2010 under Section 52 A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 against the petitioners, namely Sri Rangini Debnath and Sri Radha Kanta Debnath. In the said complaint, it has been alleged that on 06.09.2010 at about 3 p.m. while the complainant, namely Chitta Ranjan Debnath was conducting usual patrol, they registered some sounds of felling tree in the Rowa Sanctuary. Immediately, they rushed to that place. The accused persons fled away from that place realising their movement. The complainant and the other members of the Divisional Forest Protection Party chased them but they could not apprehend them. The complainant has claimed that he could recognise the petitioners. After that failed chase, they returned to that place where the petitioners were illegally felling various trees, namely kaimalla, kathakoi, owal etc. They prepared the seizure list in presence of the witnesses.
4. In the complaint, it has been stated that the place falls within Rowa Reserved Forest and it was a natural plantation under Mouja-Rowa, Khatian No.5/43, Plot No.4645. The said Rowa Reserved Forest was notified on 06.12.2003 under Notification No.F.617/Land/For/2003/P1/23,464. The said notification was published in the Tripura Gazette dated 07.02.2004. According to the complaint, as filed by Sri Chitta Ranjan Debnath, PW-1, the value of those illegally felled trees would be approximately Rs.30,000/. He urged the Court to punish the petitioners under Section 26(1)(f) and 40 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
5. Based thereon, after taking the cognizance the inquiry started and the substance of accusation was read to the petitioners in the due course. Both the petitioners denied the accusation and claimed to face the trial. Thereafter, to substantiate the accusation, three witnesses, namely Chitta Ranjan Debnath (PW-1) Pradip Dhar (PW-2) and Manoranjan Debnath (PW-3) were examined and some documents were admitted in the evidence such as, the seizure list, Exbt.5, the handsketch map of Rowa Sheet No.1, C.S. Plot No.226/4645, Khatian No.5/43(Exbt.2), the Gazette Notification dated 07.02.2004 showing the Rowa Wild Sanctuary under the Khatian No.5/43. The said Gazette Notification has been admitted and marked as Exbt.4. Thereafter, the petitioners were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. when they repeated their plea of innocence but they did not adduce any evidence in their defence.
6. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court has observed that the prosecution has proved the accusation beyond reasonable doubt that both the accused persons, Rangini Debnath and Radhkanta Debnath, were engaged in illegally felling of trees in the Rowa Sanctuary which is a protected area. So, both the accused persons were convicted under Section 26(1)(f) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and sentenced in consequence thereof.
7. The said judgment of conviction dated 24.05.2013 delivered in CR 282/2010 (Forest) was challenged in the criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2013
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
