IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 327 of 2003 Date of decision: 7.9.2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ State of Himachal Pradesh. ... Appellant Versus Noor Din and others …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.N.K.Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. Mr. Himmat Negi vice counsel for respondents No.2 and 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ V.K.Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb. Distt. Una dated 18.9.2002 vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 379 IPC read with Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 24.12.1998, Head Constable Ramesh Chand alongwith forest officials named by him, was on patrol duty and at about 8.15 A.M. a van bearing registration No.HP-01-6801 was found parked near a bridge. The driver of the van was sitting in the vehicle. Four persons were found carrying logs of Khair wood on their shoulders and were coming towards the van. The driver of the van along with two persons were apprehended on the spot and remaining two persons fled away leaving khair wood on the spot. On questioning the Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 names of the driver and two persons were found to be Pritam Singh, Tarsem Land Satish Kumar respectively. They also told the names of the persons who had fled away as Satish Kumar and Noor Din. On checking of the van, two khair wood logs were found kept inside it. Four logs were lying near the van. 15 logs were also found under the bridge. These were taken in possession by the police officials and a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the trial Court who tried the respondents for the offences detailed above leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution had examined 19 witnesses to substantiate its case. The statement of the In-charge of the patrolling party and the other police and the forest officials accompanying him can be said to be most relevant and they need to be appreciated. 5. A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court shows that it had observed that there was a contradiction in the statements of PW-1 Bachitter Singh and PW-2 Fuman Singh Block Officer and PW-10 Piara Singh. PW-10 Piara Singh has stated that the four persons along with the driver of the van were carrying Khair logs on their shoulders whereas, PW-2 Fuman Singh, Block Officer has stated that the driver was sitting inside the van and he does not state that he was carrying Khair logs on his shoulders. This contradiction has weighed with the learned trial Court in disbelieving the prosecution story particularly when the witnesses were official witnesses. No attempts were made to associate 3 independent witnesses at the time of search of the van or the recovery of the logs nor has it been stated that the independent witnesses were not available at the relevant time. Therefore, this contradiction was held to be a major one in disbelieving the prosecution story. 6. A perusal of the record shows that PW-1 Bachitter Singh had turned hostile and he had not supported the prosecution versions though he was a forest official. He was subjected to detailed cross examination and in cross examination, he stated that he saw the accused persons in the Court room for the first time, therefore, his statement does not establish the identity of the accused persons qua their involvement. 7. Apart from the above, the prosecution has relied on the disclosure statement made by the accused Satish Kumar to show that he got recovered an iron saw with the aid of which, trees were cut by him having been concealed in his cow shed. The disclosure statement is Ex. PW-3/B which was sought to be proved PW-3 Rajinder Kumar and PW-4 Ram Pal. Both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution story that any such statement was made by accused Satish Kumar, therefore, this circumstantial evidence was held to have been not proved by the prosecution. 8. Apart from the above, the recovery memo. Ex.PW-3/A was sought to be proved from the statements of PW-4 Ram Pal and PW-3 Rajinder Kumar. Both of them have not supported the prosecution story and did not state that they had witnessed the recovery of any iron saw at the instance of Statish Kumar accused vide recovery memo. Ex.PW-3/B. 9. Apart from the above, the prosecution has also tried to link accused Tarsem Lal with the commission of offence on the basis of 4 the demarcation given by him that he could get the land identified in the forest from where the trees were cut. Both these witnesses namely PW-3 Rajinder Kumar and PW-4 Tarsem Pal did not support the prosecution story and as such the prosecution failed to link Tarsem Lal with the Commission of the offence. His statement is inadmissible in evidence since it did not lead to any recovery. 10. Apart from the above, another disclosure statement Ex.PW- 16/A was also sought to be relied upon to show that the accused Ram Pal has stated that he could get the place identified under the bridge where the cut logs were concealed and were transported. The witnesses to the above statement have not supported the prosecution version and this cannot be termed as disclosure statement made at the instance of the accused. 11. Reliance was also placed upon the report Ex.PW-5/B which shows that trees were cut from the forest land and the learned trial Court has given reasons in disbelieving the said report. 12. From the above discussion, it is clear that no infirmity could be pointed out in the said judgment passed by the learned trial Court and the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and the findings cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 13. For the reasons given above, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged forthwith. Sept.7, 2010 ( V.K. Ahuja ) (SDS) Judge