IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.151 of 2004. Date of Decision: 31st August, 2010. ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Bhagwan Chand ..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) : The acquittal of the respondent under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.132-2 of 1999, dated 8.12.2003, has been assailed in this appeal by the State. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. In short, the prosecution case can be summed up thus. There was a dilapidated building of the Forest Department at a secluded place locally known as Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - ‘Basrang’. It is alleged that the Forest Department had stacked the wooden pieces in that building. On 11th June, 1999 PW-3 Ranjit Singh Block Officer was on patrolling in C- 96 forest alongwith PW-1 Forest Guard Chain Ram. While passing through said dilapidated building they noticed that the wooden pieces which were stacked therein, were found missing. Till 24th June, 1999 there was no trace of the said property. PW-1 Chain Ram was enquiring into the matter at the instance of Banu Ram Block Officer (PW-2) and he came across PW-4 Jawahar Lal, brother of the respondent and got the clue that the respondent had removed the said wood, to his village. As such, a complaint was lodged by PW-2 aforesaid with the police of Police Station, Bhawanagar, on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW-2/E was registered for the offence aforesaid. PW-1 Chain Ram had already seized some timber vide memo Ext.PW-1/D prior to the lodging of the FIR from Dwar (cave) vide memo Ext.PW-1/A and some wooden pieces lying outside the cow-shed of the respondent were also taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-1/B and recovered timber at both the places were handed over to Sita Ram. 4. During the investigation the police visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ext.PW-6/A of the - 3 - dilapidated building and the traces of the alleged recovery were also prepared by PW-6. The wood which was given on Sapurdari to Sita Ram was taken over by the police and handed over to Block Officer PW-2 Banu Ram vide memos Ext.PW-2/A and 2/B. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completing the investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent. 5. As already stated above, on the completion of the trial, the respondent was acquitted on the ground that the statements of prosecution witnesses did not inspire confidence in so far as PW-4 Jawahar Lal, brother of the respondent particularly is concerned. It stands proved on record in so many words that he was indisposed off towards the respondent and also that Sita Ram was not examined. It was further observed that the statements of PW-1 and 4 both were contradictory to each other and there was no evidence at all to prove that the respondent had removed the wood from the place aforesaid to the place of recovery. 6. PW-4 Jawahar Lal was an employee in S.D.M. office, Bhawanagar. According to him, he had disclosed about the fact of removal of timber on 8th/9th June, 1999 to - 4 - Forest Guard PW-1 Chain Ram, whereas Chain Ram stated that till 24th June, 1999 they were not at all knowing as to who had committed the theft of the wood. 7. Further, Jawhar Lal aforesaid stated that he was living separately from his brother for the last so many years and also that his father was living with the respondent. Although, he denied that he was not pulling on well with his brother-respondent which caused him to implicate in a false case, yet PW-2 Banu Ram, Block Officer admitted in his cross-examination that both, i.e., PW-4 Jawahar Lal and respondent Bhagwan Chand were inimically disposed off towards each other. 8. Not only this when Jawahar Lal was employed in the office of S.D.M., he was supposed to be there during the working days in his office in absence of any leave or on a holiday. As to when and on what date he is alleged to have noticed removing of timber from the said place by the respondent, with respect to this he has completely exhibited his ignorance. The wood in question was of the small sizes ranging between 0.75 cm to 3.50 cm and there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that from where it was stacked into the dilapidated house by the - 5 - Forest Guard or any other forest official nor any detail was made thereof. 9. In view of above situation, in my opinion, the testimony of PW-4 Jawahar Lal is quite discrepant and cannot be acted upon, more specifically in view of the contradictions appearing in his statement and PW-1 Chain Lal Forest Guard. If these statements are taken out altogether from consideration, there remains nothing on record to prove the movement of the timber from the place from where it was alleged to have been removed and the place of recovery which was shown as open place. The net analysis arrived at by the learned trial Court is deducible from the evidence on record, which is plausible; therefore, acquittal of the respondent requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 10. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case. 11. Send down the record. August 31, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)