IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.386 of 2002 Date of judgment: June 29, 2009 State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Kundan Singh & others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : M. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. . For the Respondents : Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate, for Respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for Respondents 3 & 4. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 28.2.2002, of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondents Kundan Singh, Amar Singh, Bhag Singh and Shobh Ram, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 120-B, 379 IPC, Section 34 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, have been acquitted. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Prosecution’s case, which led to the trial of the respondents for the aforesaid offences, may be noticed. Respondent No.3 Bhag Singh, had been put in-charge as Forest Guard for Chhajpur 14-A Forest, vide order Ex. PW5/H, which is dated 12.8.1992. Respondent No.4 Shobh Ram, had been put in-charge as Block Officer, inter alia, of Chhajpur Block 14-A Forest, vide order dated 25.4.1993, ExPW5/F. It is alleged that during the posting of the aforesaid two respondents as Forest Guard and Block Officer, respectively, illicit felling had taken place in Chhajpur 14-A Forest and 9 trees of deodar had been illicitly felled. These trees were allegedly felled by respondents Kundan Singh and Amar Singh, in connivance with respondents Bhag Singh and Shobh Ram. Connivance of Bhag Singh and Shobh Ram was presumed because they had not prepared any damage report in respect of illicit felling. Also, illicit felling had been carried out by respondents Kundan Singh and Amar Singh in another forest, known as, UPF Sansog, where 24 trees of different species, i.e. 19 trees of deodar, 4 trees of Kail and one tree of Van, were felled. The site where Van tree had been felled was found to be in illegal possession of respondent Kundan Singh, who had planted an orchard around the site of said Van tree. Investigation was carried out by a team, headed by PW-19 - 3 - Govind Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Other members of the team were PW4 Parma Nand, Deputy Ranger, PW2 Bhau Ram, Range Officer and PW3 Diwakar Dutt Sharma, Forest Guard. Respondent Kundan Singh, allegedly made a confessional statement Ex.PW2/A, that he had cut three deodar trees from Sansog Dehat forest and that 18 sleepers and 23 Karis which had been recovered during investigation were extracted from the said illicitly felled trees. Appellant No.2, had also allegedly made a confessional statement Ex.PW2/G, per which he confessed having felled one deodar tree in UPF-Sansog. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses, out of which it mainly relied upon the testimony of PW2 Bhau Ram, PW3 Diwakar Dutt Sharma, PW4 Parma Nand, PW1 O.P.Solanki, PW15 Bhag Chand and PW19 Govind Singh, Investigating Officer, to prove the charge. Trial Court has acquitted the respondents holding that there is no direct evidence with regard to accusation of illicit felling of trees by respondents Kundan Singh and Amar Singh and also there is no evidence indicating that respondents Bhag Singh and Shobh Ram, were working as Forest Guard and Block Officer, - 4 - respectively, in respect of UF Chhajpur 14-A, at the relevant time. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General, as also the counsel representing the respondents and perused the record. Trial Court has relied upon Ex.D1, and Ex.PW5/B, to come to the conclusion that respondents Bhag Singh and Shobh Ram were not charged with duty of protecting UF 14- A, at the relevant time. Ex.D1 is an order, whereby one Murat Singh had been directed to take charge of UF-14-A, from respondent Bhag Singh. As per this document, Murat Singh took over the charge of the said forest from respondent Bhag Singh on 19.6.1993. Ex. PW5/B is the charge report, whereby charge of Chhajpur Forest Block had been taken over from respondent Shobh Ram by Shyama Nand, Deputy Ranger. The date of handing over of the charge is 7.7.1993. PW4 Parma Nand testified that inspection of Chhajpur Forest was carried out on 27.9.1993 and it was on that date that illicit felling of 9 deodar trees was noticed. PW3 Diwakar Dutt Sharma, Forest Guard, stated that the trees in Chhajpur forest had been felled within 52 days of inspection carried out on 27.9.1993. That means the trees were felled between 6th August to 27th September, 1993. Ex.D1 shows that respondent Bhag Singh - 5 - had handed over the charge of Forest Guard, Chhajpur to Murat Singh, Forest Guard, on 19.6.1993, or say, much before the alleged felling of the trees. Similarly, charge report Ex.PW5/B shows that the charge of Chhajpur Forest 14-A, as Block Officer had been handed over by Shobh Ram respondent to Shyama Nand, Deputy Ranger on 7.7.1993, and this was also before the alleged illicit felling of trees from Chhajpur 14-A forest. So, the charge that these respondents connived in the illicit felling from Chhajpur 14-A Forest, cannot be said to have been established. Prosecution did not lead any evidence suggesting that the trees had been illicitly felled by respondents Kundan Singh and Amar Singh. No witness was examined by the prosecution to testify that he or she has seen the respondents felling the trees. Prosecution relied upon the alleged confessional statements Ex.PW2/A, made by respondent Kundan Singh and Ex.PW2/G, allegedly made by respondent Amar Singh. Statement Ex.PW2/A purports to have been made by respondent Kundan Singh on 27.9.1993. Learned Trial Court has disbelieved the genuineness of the statement because it does not find mention in the report of the D.F.O. which was lodged on 28.9.1993. That report is Ex.PW1/C and it is dated 28.9.1993. Learned trial Court has observed that had - 6 - this confession been actually made by the respondents and also recorded on 27.9.1993 by PW2 Bhau Ram, as testified by him, it must have found mentioned in Ex.PW1/C. I do not see any reason to take a different view. Ex.PW2/G is not a statement made by respondent Amar Singh. This statement was made by Jia Ram, father of respondent Amar Singh. Jia Ram was not cited as a witness of the prosecution. His statement cannot be used against respondent Amar Singh as latter’s confession. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. June 29, 2009 (Surjit Singh), J. s.