Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Tri) 75

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Darcharam Reang and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P No. 85/2017
Decided On : 10-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :P. Roy Barman, Advocate
For the Respondents: S. Ghosh, Addl. Public Prosecutor

The legal requirement of the place being a reserved forest for the application of Section 26(e) and (f) of the Forest Act was emphasized, and the court highlighted the need for proof of such designation in cases involving offences under these sections.

Headnote:
Indian Forest Act - Conviction under Section 26(e) and (f) - [Illegal Girdling of Teak Trees] - [Section 26(e) and (f) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927] - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 26(e) and (f) of the Forest Act, emphasizing the requirement of the place being a reserved forest for the application of the said sections. The court highlighted the lack of proof that the place of occurrence was a reserved forest and the doubtful involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were convicted under Section 26(e) and (f) of the Indian Forest Act for girdling teak trees in a plantation center. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners intended to clear the forest for dwelling purposes, causing a loss to the State Government. The trial court convicted the petitioners based on the evidence of forest officers and witnesses.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no proof that the place of occurrence was a reserved forest, as required by the Forest Act for the application of Section 26(e) and (f). The court also doubted the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence, especially considering one of the accused was a disabled person and released on probation of good conduct. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the criminal revision petition.
Issues: 1. Proof of the place of occurrence being a reserved forest as required by the Forest Act. 2. Doubtful involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The legal requirement of the place being a reserved forest for the application of Section 26(e) and (f) of the Forest Act was emphasized. The court also considered the doubtful involvement of the accused in the offence, especially in the case of a disabled accused who was released on probation of good conduct.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the criminal revision petition, leading to the release of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 15.11.2017 delivered by the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2017 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.08.2017 under Section 26 (e) and (f) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as "the Forest Act") Crl. Rev. P. No. 57/2016. delivered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kanchanpur, North Tripura in Case No. CR(FA) 01 of 2016.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

Sri Famkima Darlong (PW-1), Forester, submitted offence report No. 05/FPU-16/Kanchanpur dated 27.09.2016 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at kanchanpur on 28.09.2016 alleging, inter alia, that while he was patrolling in the area called Brupara in Kanchanpur along with his accompanying forest staff on 12.09.2016 at around 4 PM, he saw that a large number of Teak trees in the teak plantation of Uricherra under Tripura JICA project were girdled by axe above the ground level. The forest patrolling party led by informant came across 50 of such girdled teak trees in the area, a list of which was prepared by them containing the description of the trees. None of the offenders could be spotted. Sources were engaged to trace them out. On 26.09.2016 at about 8 O' Clock in the morning, informant (PW-1) received a telephonic information from the President of Uricherra Joint Forest Management Committee (JMFC) namely, Sri Uttam Kr. Reang (PW-5) who was in charge of the management of the teak plantation. He informed the informant (PW-1) that the petitioners along with one Kirit Ch. Reang were engaged in girdling the standing teak trees at Uricherra. The informant immediately arrived at the spot along with his accompanying staff and spotted the three accused including the two petitioners committing the offence but before they were caught by the forest patrolling party, they started running. The members of the patrolling party also ran behind them but all of them escaped through the jungle. While leaving, they left behind one axe. The axe was seized by the patrolling party vide seizure list dated 26.09.2016 (Exbt. 1). It has been alleged that the intention of the offenders was to clear the forest by removing the teak trees for occupying the forest land for the purpose of dwelling. Allegedly by their act, they caused huge loss to the State Government and committed offence punishable under Section 26(e) and (f) of the Forest Act.

3. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kanchanpur received the offence report and vide his order dated 03.10.2016 in case No. CR(F/A) 01/2016 took cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 26(e) and (f) of the Forest Act.

4. At the commencement of trial, the particulars of the offence were stated to the three accused including the two petitioners in terms of Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. hereunder). Each of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. During trial, nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and two documents (Exbt. 1 and Exbt. 2) were produced to establish the prosecution case. After the recording of prosecution evidence was over, three accused were examined separately under Section 313 Cr. PC and their replies were recorded by the learned trial Court. All pleaded innocence and claimed that the charges were foisted on them.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the three accused of the case including the two petitioners for having committed offence punishable under Section 26 (e) and (f) of the Forest Act. Having observed that convict namely Kirit Ch. Reang was a disabled person, learned trial Court released him on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond before the Probation Officer. The other two convicts namely, Darcharam Reang and Joyram Reang, petitioners herein, were heard on the quest