1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 31/07/2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katol in Summary Case no. 1547 of 1997 whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 26 (i) (d),(f), (g) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Rules 3, 17, 23 and 25 of the Bombay Transit of Forest Produce (Vidarbha Region, Saurashtra and Kutch Areas) Rules 1960.
2. The facts, stated briefly, are as under :
AmrutbhaiPatel (Respondent no. 3 herein) has taken Dhavad Saw Mill, Katol on lease. Himmatbhai Patel (Respondent no. 4 herein) is a relative of Amrutbhai. Bhaurao Daulat Yedame (Respondent no.1 herein ) is their Diwanji. Deorao Kumbhare (Respondent no.2 herein), Vishwanath Yedame (Respondent no. 5 herein) and Harischandra Yedame (Respondent no. 6 herein) had loaded six logs in the Blue Colored Maroti Van No. Dl2CA3972 on 09/09/1997. The Logs were kept hidden at Tandulwani in the field of one Gangadhar Somkuwar. It is alleged that the accused had cut the trees illicitly from the Government forest. After loading the timber logs in the Maroti Van, the van went to Dhawad Saw Mill, Katol and the Timber was unloaded there. It is case of the Prosecution that the confessional statements of accused Amrutbhai and Deorao were recorded which indicated that the accused were involved in illicit felling of the trees to get them converted in the Saw Mill. Confiscation proceedings under Section 61 A of the Forest Act started and the Authorized officer has passed an order to confiscate the Maroti Van and the Teak Timber. The said order was confirmed as the appeal challenging the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Six witnesses were examined to prove the case. The Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them.
3. It is submitted by Mr.M.P.Badar, learned Special Counsel for the Appellant that the learned Trial Judge erred to overlook the confessional Statements and other evidence on the record about illicit felling of the trees and transportation thereof to the Saw Mill as also the panchanama regarding seizure of the wood. It is argued that the presumption under Section 69 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not rebutted by the accused. He prayed to quash and set aside the impugned Judgment and Order.
4. Mr.S.P.Palshikar, learned Advocate for the Respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned Judgment and Order on the ground that it is well reasoned and no interference is needed. He submitted that there was no evidence of any voluntary and truthful confessional Statements as no such Statement was recorded in the presence of any independent witness so as to prove it according to law to base conviction thereupon. Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned Judgment and order.
5. It appears from the record that six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Purushottam (PW1) deposed about the information received by him from Chaukidar Uttam Dhoke, who told him about one blue Maruti Van which came to Katol and which was loaded with teak wood. Chaukidar was told to inspect the Murti forest beat. On the next day, a message was sent to the Range Forest Officer of Kondhali. On 10/09/1997, the Chaukidar, the RFO and Purshottam (PW1) had gone to the field of Gangadhar Somkuwar at about 8.30 a. m. and found that five teak wood were lying in the field of Gangadhar Somkuwar. They had seized it under the Panchnama (Ex.12). Seizure Panchnama (Ex13) was drawn. Then they proceeded to Saw Mill and inspected it. Maruti Van No. DL2/C3972 was seized. Pieces of teak wood were seized under the Panchnama. During the course of investigation, it is alleged that the arrested Accused Bhaurao and Deorao had led panchas to the place in Murti Division Nos. 64 and 65 wherefrom they bought the teak wood. Five stumps were measured of the teak wood. Five dishes thereof were taken and compared with the pieces of the teak wood. Jungle Map Panchnama was drawn. Case was registered as per Ex.20 and investigation was done. It was revealed that Manohar Dhavad and accused Amrutbhai had hired the Saw Mill for business purpose and Diwanji Bhaurao was directed to bring the teak wood from the forest. Sukhdeo (PW2) and the Range Forest Officer supported the testimony of Purushottam (PW1). He stated regarding having received information from the forest guard Godane, with whom and the Round Officer, he went to Tandulwani village. Godane had shown the place (Field) where the teak wood were hidden. The names of the accused were revealed by Gangadhar, owner of the field. The wood was seized from the field under the Seizure Panchanama. The learned Trial Judge refused to act upon the alleged confessional Statement of Bhaurao Yedme on the ground that the same is inadmissible in evidence in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial Judge observed that there are several statements having been recorded by the Investigating Officer RFO Ahire which are not admissible under the Evidence Act. Evidence of the field owner was doubted on the ground that he possessed the teak wood in his field but the prosecution made him witness. The field was a private property and not the public place. The question arose as to why he kept mum or allowed the teak wood to be kept by the persons known to him who trespassed in his field, which remained unanswered. The field owner had not noted the number of the Maroti Van. The trial Court noted that Gangadhar, who was Sarpanch of the village Tandulwani and was standing only 200 feet away from the spot, did not raise his voice to stop the illegal act. The Panchas were employees of the Forest department and were interested witnesses. The trial Court expressed its doubt regarding the Investigating Officer as the P.O.R. is the last stage of the investigation. No proper link was established to show as to how the accused persons were involved in bringing the wood from the Forest. The Role of Amrutbhai was not stated either by any witness or the Investigating Officer. There was discrepancy in the evidence as, according to the Seizure Panchnama, logs were freshly cut and the Panchanama at the Saw Mill indicated that the seized logs were not freshly cut. The doubt arose as to whether the wood seized was really the wood brought from the forest. Learned counsel for the Appellant made an attempt to convince me that the Statement, confessional in nature from the accused to the forest Officer, not being the police Officer ought to have been accepted as acceptable and reliable evidence to nail the accused in this case. The submission, however, is a blanket proposition and can not be accepted in the absence of express acknowledgment of the guilt. There has to be an admission of all substantial facts constituting the offence, not affected by any threat, inducement, promise etc. In other words, the confessional Statement must be voluntary, free from any coercion, undue influence arising from the inducement or promise made from the Authority recording the confessional Statement. The alleged statement of accused Bhaurao was not recorded with the above precautions or in the presence of independent witnesses so as to render it acceptable and reliable. There was no evidence by way of voluntary and truthful confession on the part of the accused to impute criminal liability to them individually or collectively. The trial Court rightly granted benefit of doubt to the respondents and under the above circumstances, recorded the order of acquittal, as no offences, as alleged, were proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
6. Furthermore, in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has to be very slow to interfere in a case wherein two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court may be more probable. The presumption of innocence gets strengthened by an order of acquittal. In the present case, the view of the trial Court cannot be labeled as perverse or otherwise unsustainable. I do not find any compelling or substantial ground to upset the decision by the trial Court as the view expressed by the trial Court was just and reasonable under the circumstances. Hence, the appeal has to be dismissed. The Criminal Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.