IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.743 of 2002. Decided on: July 13, 2009. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Moti Ram & Ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr P.K.Sharma, Addl.A.G. and Mr.P.M.Negi, Dy.A.G. For the respondents: Mr V.S.Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.6. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral): Heard Mr.P.K.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant / State and Mr.V.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred consequent upon granting leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reference to impugned judgment dated 31.7.2002, passed by learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, in Corruption Case No.17- S/7 of 2000 acquitting the alleged accused / respondents in Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? …2… reference to alleged offence punishable under Sections 379, 218, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 33 and Sections 41, 42 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal, it is necessary to refer the prosecution case in brief. On 9.10.1993, one Gobind Singh (PW-26), along with police officials, namely, Bhau Ram (PW-31), the then Range Officer, Shama Nand, the then Block Officer (now deceased), Yoginder Singh (PW-6), the then Forest Guard on special duty, Mohinder Singh, the then member BDC, were present in Chhajpur Forest regarding checking of illicit felling. On the statement of Bhau Ram (PW-31), under Section 154 Cr.P.C., F.I.R.Ext.PW-26/A was recorded, in reference to which it was divulged that a stump of deodar having Khudan mark -91 of class I-E was marked by A-6 in favour of A-1 instead of one deodar tree of class II-A in compartment No.14 Chhajpur forest which was sanctioned in favour of A-1 vide Timber Distribution Permit Ext.PW-3/B in reference to his application Ext.PW-3/A. The tree of said stump was illicitly felled and timber was extracted therefrom by A-I which was of class-1-E. In such illicit felling of the said tree, A-7 is said to have rendered co-operation. During …3… investigation, it was revealed that in reference to the application Ext.PW-2/A, A-2 had granted Timber Distribution Permit Ext.PW-2/B vide which one tree of Deodar of Class II- A in compartment No.14 had been granted in his favour but he cut, felled and removed a tree of deodar of 100/oversize of Class I-E having Khudan mark 18/92 which was affixed by A-5 and A-7 and A-7 who had omitted to check illicit felling and both A-5 and A-7 facilitated the illicit felling of tree of the said stumps having 18/92 Khudan mark. A-2 extracted 72 scants / nags of timber from the said illicitly felled tree and collected the said scants / nags near Panju Span. During investigation, it was also divulged that A-5 and A-7 affixed fake and forged khudan mark No.13/92 on a tree of deodar of the size 100/oversize and allowed the illicit felling of said tree by A-3 knowing it fully well that a tree of class-II of deodar had been sanctioned and marked by them in favour of Piare Lal vide Timber Distribution Permit Ext.PW- 4/A. A-3 illicitly and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with A-5 and A-7 removed 68 nags near Panju Span. 4. As per prosecution, it was found during investigation that A-5 and A-7 marked khudan mark 27/92/A on deodar tree of 100/oversize of Class-I-E in favour of A-4 without any Timber Distribution Permit and A-5 and A-7 facilitated and omitted to check the illicit felling of the stump …4… and was having Khudan mark No.27/92 by A-4. A-4 extracted 75 nags of timber from the said tree in compartment No.14 and removed the said 75 nags and stacked those near Panju Span. By the aforesaid acts A-5 to A-7 facilitated the illicit felling by A-1 to A-4 of the deodar trees of the above stated stumps which were found on the said checking. A-5 to A-7 were fully aware of the fact that the tree of Class-I-E was never granted under Timber Distribution Scheme in favour of right-holders. A-5 and A-7 were also aware of the fact that the tree of deodar having khudan mark 27/92 had been granted under Timber Distribution Scheme vide Timber Distribution Permit Ext.PW- 6/A in compartment No.13 in favour of Karanchi Devi. It appears that the stumps having Khudan mark 24/92, 62/92 and 43/92 were also found in compartment No.14, whereas, no Timber Distribution Permit had been granted in respect of the trees of the said stumps in favour of anybody. To the contrary, it was found during investigation that a tree of deodar with khudan mark 43/92 had been granted under Timber Distribution Permit Ext.PW-6/C in favour of Sohan Singh in compartment No.13 Chhajpur Forest in respect of deodar II-A tree, a deodar tree having khudan mark 24/92 had been granted in favour of Fagi Ram vide Timber Distribution Permit Ext.PW-9/A, whereas a tree with …5… khudan mark 62/92 had been granted in favour of Premu vide Timber Distribution Permit Ext.PW-10/A. 5. The trees of the stumps having Khudan marks 13/92, 18/92, 15/92, 24/92, 27/92, 43/92, 62/92 and 91/92, stated above found in compartment No.14 Chhajpur Forest had not been granted under Timber Distribution Scheme in favour of A-1 to A-4 or anybody else but all the accused in pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched between them. 6. After completion of the investigation the accused were alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences. Resultantly, charge-sheet had been put up in the case against Moti Ram (A-1), Sar Chand (A-2), Hari Singh (A-3), Salmu Ram (A-4), Sobh Ram (A-5), Bihari Lal (A-6) and Bhag Singh (A-7). 7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as thirty two witnesses in all besides placing reliance upon the documentary evidence, whereas, the alleged accused persons have totally denied the prosecution case in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 8. On the basis of material on record, the following points were framed for determination. The first point was answered in negative and in reference to second point, all …6… alleged accused / respondents were acquitted for the alleged offences:- i) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 to A-4 in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched with A-5 to A-7 wrongly and illegally got fake and forged khudan marks affixed on the deodar trees shown in spot map Ext.PW-26/B and compartment History-sheet Ext.PW-31/B and A-5 to A-7 by preparing incorrect record facilitated A-1 to A-4 to illicitly fell and remove trees shown in spot map Ext.PW-26/B and thereby all the accused cheated the State by causing wrongful gain to themselves and corresponding loss to the State and A-5 to A-7 committed criminal misconduct by abusing their position as public servants? ii) Final order. 9. In reference to point No.1, the trial Court has found that Chhajpur is a demarcated protected forest area divided in two parts i.e. compartments No.13 and 14. The trial Court has found that indisputably as per Timber Distribution Permit Ext.PW-2/B, a deodar tree of II-A had been allotted in favour of A-2 in compartment No.14 Chhajpur Forest. A-1 had been granted deodar tree of …7… Class-II-A in compartment No.14 Chhajpur Forest vide Timber Distribution Permit Ext.PW-3/B. It has also been noticed that A-3 and A-4 had not been granted any tree under Timber Distribution Scheme during the years 1992-93 in compartment No.14 Chhajpur Forest. It has also been noted that the alleged accused have been charged that the trees of deodar shown in spot map Ext.PW-26/B and compartment History file Ext.PW-31/B had been illicitly felled and timber thereof was extracted and removed by A-1 to A-4 on the basis of fake and forged Khudan mark engraved by A-5 to A-7 committed criminal misconduct. 10. The prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-11 Kashmir Singh, PW-19 Taru Ram and PW-29 Mast Ram besides that upon the testimonies of PW-31 Bhau Ram, PW-6 Yoginder Singh, PW Diwakar and PW-1 Hari Chand. A-5 to A-7 have very emphatically stated that they had neither made a mark on the said khudan marks on the stumps shown in spot map Ext.PW-26/B nor they had any knowledge about the marking of the said stumps. The testimony of PW-13 O.P.Solanki, the then Divisional Forest Officer, had not corroborated the version of PW-31 Bhau Ram, the then Range Officer, regarding the illicit felling of trees in question. The prosecution has also failed to explain as to why the …8… complaint was not lodged by PW-31 regarding the illicit felling of the trees in question or why A-5 to A-7 were not asked to explain the said lapse on their part to detect the illicit felling. PW-31 did not disclose the said fact to the police. The list of the said trees was prepared but the said list was not placed as evidence by the prosecution. Nothing was pointed out about the categories under which trees of the stumps in question had been felled, whereas, it is pertinent to mention here that during the relevant period in question the felling work of Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation was going on. 11. PW-6, said to be very interesting witness, could not indicate as how many trees were found to have been cut under the Timber Distribution Scheme and illicit felling differently. The prosecution story has become more doubtful in view of the fact that Khudan mark can be engraved by anybody. As such, the testimony of PW-6 gives a contradictory version in view of the fact that no independent witness has disclosed on spot or anywhere else in his presence indicating that the trees of the stumps in question had been cut by them or at the instance of A-1 to A-4. The age of the cut trees was not ascertained. No help could also be derived from the testimony of PW-7 so much so, independent witness PW-11 Kashmir Singh has not …9… supported the prosecution case. PW-11 has not testified that a tree was cut by him at the instance of A-1 but he has stated that tree was cut and felled by PW-29 Mast Ram at the instance of A-1. 12. PW-19 Taru Ram has also not supported the prosecution case as he could not show as to which particular tree was illicitly felled by A-1. PW-9 Karam Dass, PW-10 Premu, PW-12 Roshan Lal and PW-27 Sohan Singh have also not supported the case of the prosecution, whereas, these witnesses were most material. Nothing has been demonstrated by the prosecution that the trees have illicitly been felled by A-1 to A-4. There are many contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 13. I have carefully gone through the material on record and am of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the case against the alleged accused / respondents beyond reasonable doubt and there are apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, as have rightly been noticed by learned trial Court. As such, I have no occasion to interfere in the conclusion and verdict arrived at by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla. …10… 14. In view of the above discussion / analysis, there appears no illegality in the impugned judgment, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused / respondents are hereby discharged. July 13, 2009. ( R.B.Misra ) (soni) Judge