IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.647 of 2002 Date of judgment: July 7 2009 State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Atma Ram & ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate, Respondent No.1. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 19.6.2006 of learned Special Judge, whereby respondents Atma Ram, Shobh Ram and Bhag Singh, have been acquitted of charge, under Sections 379, 420, 120-B IPC, Section 33 and Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A case was registered against the respondents at the instance of PW15 Govind Singh, a police Officer, who on checking compartment No.13 of Chhajpur Forest on 10.10.1993, found that a Kail tree had been illicitly felled by respondent No.1 Atma Ram, with the connivance of respondent No.2 Shobh Ram, a Deputy Ranger and respondent No.3 Bhag Singh, a Forest Guard. It was alleged Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - that respondent No.1 Atma Ram had illicitly felled a Kail tree in the year 1993, but with a view to covering this illegal act, he approached respondents 2 & 3 to put hammer mark on the stump of the tree, indicating that the felling had taken place in the year 1992, under Timber Distribution Scheme. Timber extracted from the tree was found lying on the spot when checking was done by PW15 Govind Singh, on 10.10.1993. Trial Court has acquitted the respondents, holding that there is no evidence, indicating that the hammer mark on the stump had been put by respondents 2 & 3. According to the trial Court, hammer No.HP 2920 had been allotted to respondent No.2, a Deputy Ranger. This hammer was not found imprinted upon the stump. The print of the hammer that was noticed on the stump, read 61/92 and there was no evidence on record indicating that respondents 2 & 3 had anything to do with the hammer that produced the said impression 61/92. Also it has been held by the trial Court that age of the stump, that is to say, the time around which tree could have been felled, had not been got determined by the prosecution and, therefore, the possibility of the tree having been felled even before the posting of respondents 2 & 3 in the area could not have been ruled out. With a view to proving the allegation that felling had been done by respondent No.1, prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW17 Mast Ram, who had allegedly been - 3 - engaged by respondent No.1 to convert the felled tree into timber. He did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile. Learned trial Court has observed that since the sole witness of the alleged illicit felling of the tree by respondent No.1 did not support the prosecution version, it could not be said that the felling had been done by respondent No.1. I have heard the learned assistant Advocate General, as also the learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the evidence. Evidence which had been collected during the investigation to prove the allegation that illicit felling had been carried out by respondent No.1, was the statement of PW17 Mast Ram. The witness, while in the witness-box as PW17, denied that the tree had been felled by respondent No.1. No other evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the allegation. Thus, the allegation that felling was done by respondent No.1 remains un-substantiated. Respondent No.2 had been allotted hammer bearing No. 2920, facsimile of which is on paper-sheet Ex.PW7/B. The impression which was found on the stump was different from the aforesaid specimen hammer print. Therefore, it cannot be said that hammer on the stump had been affixed by respondents 2 & 3. Also there is no evidence suggesting that stump had been hammer marked after respondents 2 & 3 had taken over the charge of the aforesaid - 4 - compartment. Respondent No.2 took-over the charge on 24.4.1992, while respondent No.3 assumed the charge on 22.8.1992. The hammer prints on the stump suggest that the marking took place in the year 1992. The possibility of this marking having taken place prior to respondents 2 and 3 taking over the charge of the compartment, in question, cannot be ruled out. In view of the above stated position, it is held that the appeal is without merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. July 7, 2009 (Surjit Singh), J. s.