IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.117 of 2001 Reserved on 8.1.2008 Date of decision 11.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Rania Ram Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr.M.A.Khan and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondent: Mr.C.N. Singh, Advocate, Rajiv Sharma,J. The respondent was prosecuted in Case No.23-1 of 2000 under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chopal, District Shimla and was acquitted on 15.9.2000. The State has filed the present appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The brief facts which can be culled out from the judgment of the trial court are that on 13.3.1999 while Forest Guard Sant Ram was patrolling in Malat beat it was found that accused had illicitly cut one deodar II-A tree without valid permission. The damage report Ex.. PW-1/A was issued against the accused. The matter was investigated and challan was put up before the trial court. The prosecution in order to prove its case had examined four witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court acquitted the accused on 15.9.2000, hence this appeal against his acquittal. 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Mr.M.A.Khan, learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused. He then contended that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution which has led to grave miscarriage of justice. Mr.C.N.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent had supported the judgment of the trial court dated 15.9.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. PW-1 Sant Ram has issued the damage report Ex.PW-1/A. He has stated that he was accompanied by Birbal i.e. PW-2 and Devia Ram (PW-3). In his cross-examination he has admitted that he has neither seen the accused cutting the tree nor sawing the timber. He could not state in cross-examination when the tree was cut. PW-2 Birbal has stated in his examination-in-chief that he accompanied Sant Ram during patrolling in the forest Malath. Birbal PW-2 has specifically admitted in his cross- examination that he could not identify the accused on the spot. He has further admitted that the accused was not apprehended while cutting the tree. He had further admitted that he has not seen the accused even sawing the timber. PW-2 has stated that he alone was accompanying Sant Ram. PW-3 Devia has stated that he was accompanying Sant Ram PW- 1. PW-2 has not mentioned that PW-3 was also accompanying Sant Ram. PW-3 has only mentioned the name of Sant Ram and not PW-2. PW-3 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the accused was not found cutting the tree nor sawing the timber. PW-4 Dula Ram has recorded the statement of the witnesses. The incident is dated 13.3.1999. However, the statements were recorded by PW-4 of the witnesses on 5.3.2000 after a lapse of almost one year. The investigation was required to be done promptly and the statements of witnesses were to be recorded immediately at the spot. The delay in not recording the statements of the witnesses during the course of investigation after the lapse of one year 3 has not been explained by the prosecution. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses. The judgment passed by the trial court calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. January 11, 2008(g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.