IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.577 of 2000 Reserved on:13.03.2008. Decided on: March 14, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Sohan Singh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl. A.G. For the respondent: Mr K.S.Pathania, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 20.9.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, in case No.92-1 of 1998 acquitting the respondent under Sections 32, 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 353, 332, 504 and 506 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-2 Ram Lal, Forest Guard along with PW-2/A Joginder Singh on 6.2.1998 were patrolling near village Makri. It was found that accused Sukh Dev and Sohan Singh were carrying Khair logs on their shoulders. On noticing Forest Guard, they left the Khair logs and ran away. The logs were given in the supurdari of PW-3 Prem Singh. Joginder Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… Singh reached Makri Bus Stand to search the accused, both accused were found consuming liquor on the vend. The accused started abusing PW-2 complainant Ram Lal, Forest Guard, and picked up a scuffle in order to evade the inquiry. Accused Sukh Dev gave danda blow to Joginder Singh resulting injuries near his eye and other parts of the body. Thereafter accused ran away from the place and threatened to liquidate them. On this, complainant preferred complaint Ext.PA dated 7.2.1998 to Forest Range Officer Naina Devi who forwarded the same for registration of a case and accordingly F.I.R. No.15/98 Ext.PW-5/C dated 7.2.1998 came to be registered at Police Station, Kotkehloor. Joginder Singh was medically examined. The police took into possession logs which were given in supurdari to complainant vide Ext.PB. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. The accused were charged under Sections 32, 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 353, 332, 504 and 506 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined six witnesses. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ultimately acquitted the accused, hence the appeal. There were two accused but accused Sukh Dev alias Guddu died during the pendency of the appeal and appeal as against him had abated as per order dated 7.12.2000 of this Court. The appeal survives only against Sohan Singh respondent. 3. I have heard Mr.A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, Mr K.S.Pathania, learned counsel for the …3… respondent and gone through the record. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has mis-appreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution has proved the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent along with deceased co-accused Sukh Dev gave beatings to public servants. The respondent has wrongly been acquitted. Mr.Pathania has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record and the judgment of acquittal does not require any interference. 4. PW-1 Ram Lal has stated that Ram Lal (Forest Guard) and Joginder Singh met him in village Makri and the two accused were also there. He went inside the shop. He heard cries of Sukh Dev “Mar Diya, Mar Diya” after five minutes and saw that blood was oozing out from the lips of Sukh Dev. He did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. He was cross examined by the prosecution but nothing favourable to the prosecution was extracted in his cross examination. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused, he has stated that Joginder Singh gave beatings to Sukh Dev. Ram Lal and Joginder Singh were also taking liquor. 5. PW-2 Ram Lal, Forest Gurad, has stated that on 6.2.1998 at about 7 p.m. he was patrolling in the forest along with Joginder Singh. They saw accused carrying Khair logs. They called them. On this they threw the logs and ran away. He and Joginder Singh, …4… Chowkidar gave the logs on supurdari. Both the accused met them at Makri. They had taken liquor. He asked them why they ran away from the spot then they abused and gave beatings. Sukh Dev gave danda blow to Joginder Singh, Chowkidar as a result of which blood oozed out from his head. He reported the matter vide Ext.PA. The police later on gave the logs to him on supurdari vide Ext.PB. 6. PW-2/A Joginder Singh, Chowkidar has stated that in the month of June 1998, he and Ram Lal, Forest Guard, were in the forest. At about 7 p.m. accused were found carrying Khair logs. He and Guard wanted to apprehend them and for that they were signaled but they ran away after throwing the logs which were handed over to Prem Singh. Sukh Dev gave danda blow on his head and second accused caught hold him with arms from behind. PW-3 Prem Singh is the witness of supurdari. PW-4 Baldev Raj Kanungo has stated that he conducted demarcation and prepared tatima Ext.PW-1/A. He has placed on record Jamabandi Ext.PW-1/B. PW-5 Tameshwar ASI is the Investigating Officer. 7. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. Sukh Dev accused has died. PW-2/A Joginder Singh has stated that the other accused (Sohan Singh) caught hold him with arms from behind and Sukh Dev gave danda blow on his head. In his statement he has stated that the occurrence took place in June 1998 whereas the prosecution case is that the occurrence is of 6.2.1998. This part of the statement of Joginder Singh is enough to come to the conclusion that he has given statement with respect to …5… some other incident which is not even the prosecution case. The occurrence is of about 7 p.m. and PW-2/A has stated that it was dark at the time of occurrence. The prosecution has not connected the Khair logs with the Government forest. No independent witness has been examined to prove that Sohan Singh abused and obstructed the public servants from performing their duties. PW-1 has stated that blood was oozing out from the lips of Sukh Dev. The prosecution has not examined doctor in order to prove the injuries allegedly sustained by Joginder Singh. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has drawn proper inference from the material on record. No case for interference has been made out. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent, are discharged. March 14, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)