1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 463 of 2001. Decided on: September 23, 2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Keshav Ram. …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent : Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): Heard and gone through the record. The respondent was charged for the offences under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, allegedly felling one Deodar tree in D.P.F. Daran-Gehar. The damage report Ex.PW1/A was prepared by PW1 Payaru Ram Forest Guard on 9.11.1994. The timber was seized and handed over to PW8 Shri Moti Ram on supurdari vide memo Ex.PW1/B. As per the prosecution case, the respondent has admitted his guilt by signing Iqbalnama Ex.PW1/C, in the presence of Moti Ram and Chunni Lal witnesses. The Block Officer Dharam Singh issued a notice for compounding the offence and the respondent partly paid Rs.300/- as compensation, but did not pay the balance Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 amount of Rs.53,476/-. The Block Officer Dharam Singh (PW4) recorded the statements of Chunni Lal and Moti Ram. The place of felling was got demarcated from PW9 Shri Chunni Lal the then Kanungo. He prepared tatima Ex.PW9/A and also issued the certificate Ex.PW9/B and jamabandi Ex.PW9/C of Khasra No.1, where the felling was alleged to have been done by the respondent. The prosecution has also put its reliance on the notification Ex.PW3/A issued by the Forest Department in the year 1952. The complaint against the respondent was presented in the trial court to proceed against the respondent. Notice of accusation was put to the respondent. He did not admit the guilt and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Payaru Ram Forest Guard, PW2 Harji Ram, he did not support the prosecution case, PW3 Ramesh Thakur to prove the notification, PW4 Dharam Singh Block Officer. He tried to compound the matter. PW5 Chuni Lal stated that he saw the logs of the tree, but he did not see the respondent anywhere when the Forest Guard chalked out the damage report in the presence of Moti Ram (PW9), he did not support the prosecution case. PW6 Jhor Singh, PW7 C.L. Joshi, Range Officer, PW9 Chuni Lal Kanungo, demarcated the land and PW10 Guman Singh, was a witness of compounding the offence. The respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances put to him were denied by him as his case was denial simplicitor. 3 After going through the evidence on record and hearing the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the respondent, on the grounds that there were material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. PW5 Chuni Lal denied the signing of damage report by the respondent alongwith Iqbalnama in his presence. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the State challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has argued that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective and there are grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction Shri Dharamvir Sharma, has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the area in question fell within the demarcated protected forest. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. At the very outset, I would like to say that the material witnesses of the prosecution have not supported its case, with respect to the presence of the respondent on the spot and signing of the damage report and further the compounding of the offences as alleged by the Block Officer PW4 Dharam Singh has also not been supported by the independent witness PW8 Moti ram. The alleged offence is stated to have been committed by the respondent on 9.11.1994 when the respondent was found by PW1 4 Payaru Ram Forest Guard while felling a tree. According to him at that time, PW5 Chuni Lal and PW8 Moti Ram were with him, but these witnesses have turned hostile and did not support his version. It is also worth mentioning that the case of the prosecution is regarding felling of one tree, whereas Guman Singh PW10 has stated that the respondent admitted having cut two trees but he further stated that he even did not know who had cut the same. Even this apart I find from the record that the prosecution has failed to pin-point the place by the alleged demarcation conducted by PW9 Chuni Lal, Field Kanungo. His report does not contain any detail whether he had conducted the said demarcation in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner, from time to time as per the Land Records Mannual. In view of this his report looses its importance. The prosecution has failed to prove by leading the cogent evidence that the tree in question was felled from the D.P.F. Daran-Gehar and otherwise also the evidence of the prosecution is not worth inspiring confidence for the reasons aforesaid. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned trial court, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. September 23, 2008. (Pds) 5