R.K.Singh - (1.) HEARD Sri Dinesh Pathak holding brief of Mr. K. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionists at length and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the revisionists has successfully argued that the conviction of the revisionists under Section 26 of the Forest Act is bad because there was no charge against them for the offence punishable under Section 26 of the Forest Act. The conviction under Section 332, I.P.C. has also been challenged pointing out that there was illwill between the complainant and the accused- revisionists. This Court has carefully perused the record of the case along with the learned counsel for the revisionists, and the discussions made in the trial Magistrate's judgment dated 3.8.1983 and the appellate court's judgment dated 4th June, 1984. Both the courts below have discussed the defence taken by the accused at length and in very cogent way. The courts below have given very sound reasons to reject the defence plea of the revisionists. The injury of the public servant (P.W. 2) Mr. K. C. Unial, Forester has been proved by the evidence of two public witnesses along with the medical evidence of Dr. H. C. Dua. The place of occurrence has also been found proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses No. 1, 2 and 4. Both the courts below have recorded a reasoned finding holding the revisionists guilty for the offences.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists then argued that the sentence of six months' R.I. awarded to the revisionists is excessive. But this Court does not find substance in this argument considering the features of the case in which the Forester and his companions Forest Guards Intersected the accused- revisionists in cutting the tree inside the forest and they seized the accused persons, then the Forester Mr. K. C. Unial was assaulted and the culprits fled away who are the accused -revisionists. Considering this nature of the offence, the sentence of six months' R.I. awarded by the court below is not severe and is bit to be confirmed.;