IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 2004 Date of Decision : July 21, 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant. Versus Bhagat Ram and another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State. For the respondents : Mr. B. M. Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 4.4.1996 the accused persons were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 9.12.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Disttt. Kinnaur at R/Peo, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 9/3 of 1997, tiled as State versus Bhagat Ram and others, the accused persons stand acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 4.4.1996 Sh. Ram Dass (PW-2), Forest Beat Guard had visited jungle Kafnoo-C. No. 90 and got information from Chowkidar Bhadur Chand (PW-3) about Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 illicit felling of certain trees in the forest. On receiving the information he along with PW-3 and B.O. Shri Dev Dutt (PW-1) visited the spot and seized the wood lying there. The same was given on supurdari to Sh. Jyoti Lal (PW-5) vide memo Ext. PW 2/B. PW-2 prepared damage report (Ext. PW 2/A) and also moved an application (Ext. PW 2/D) before the police for taking necessary action. F.I.R. No. 38/96 (Ext. PW 10/A), dated 5.4.1996 under Sections 33 of the Indian Forest Act and 379 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with Police Station, Bhavanagar against the accused persons for having felled six trees of Deodar and one tree of Kail from Jungle-C No. 90 on 4.4.1996 without any valid permit. The necessary investigation was carried out by Head Constable Bhajan Singh (PW-9) who after visiting the spot seized 21 scants vide memo Ext. PW 2/E. The same were given on supurdari to Forest Guard Sh. Ram Dass vide memo Ext. PW 2/E. ASI-Mukesh Kumar (PW-10) also took into possession 12 scants of Deodar and 1 scant of Kail vide recovery memo (Ext. PW1/A) which was given on supurdari to B.O. Katgaon Beet. During investigation it was found that the fact mentioned in the complaint (Ext. PW 2/D) that the accused persons had felled the trees in question was true and consequently after the investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. The accused persons were charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for having committed an offence under 3 Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined ten witnesses and the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 were also recorded. The Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences. Hence the present appeal. 5. There is no doubt that from the statements of Sh. Dev Dutt (PW-1), Sh. Ram Dass (PW-2), Sh. Bhag Chand (PW-4), Sh. Jyoti Lal (PW-5), Sh. Dalip Kumar (PW-7), Sh. Ghanshyam Dass (PW-8), HC- Bhajan Singh (PW-9) and ASI-Mukesh Kumar (PW-10) the prosecution has been able to prove that certain scants of Deodar and Kail species were actually seized by them. Trees were found to have been felled and converted into scants in Forest – C No. 90. But however, this fact alone would not link the accused to the alleged crime. In order to prove its case the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Sh. Bhadur Sain (PW-3) and Sh. Kalampur (PW-6). From the testimony of these witnesses prosecution has tried to prove that the accused persons had felled trees from the forest land belonging to the Government and the felling had taken place without any authority in law. 6. Now the statement of PW-3 is extremely sketchy and vague. He does not even mention the date of the alleged incident. He simply states that trees were felled by Bhagat Ram. Now who is this Bhagat Ram has not been identified by him. He does not state that 4 it was accused Bhagat Ram who had felled the trees in question. He does not even mention the names of the other two accused persons. 7. Further the testimony of PW-6 is extremely vague. In examination-in-chief he simply states that Bhagat Ram and Jiwan Dass were seen sawing timber in the forest. Noticeably he does not state that the timber was sawn from the trees felled by them. He also does not name the jungle and the date when he had seen accused Bhagat Ram and Jiwan Dass saw timber in the jungle. Thus there is nothing on record to link the accused with the alleged crime. 8. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 21, 2010 (PK)