IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.755 of 2002 Date of decision: 26.5.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Roshan Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer, For the respondent: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, dated 5.6.2002, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation framed under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 1.1.1997 PW-1 Jai Krishan , Forest Guard, was on patrolling in Jungle Bal-Dharuni and he found that eight trees of Deodar had been illegally felled by someone in the said forest, which trees were subsequently recovered from the house of the accused in pursuance of the enquiry conducted. Trees as alleged were given on sapurdari to PW-3 Ahemdulla and damage report was prepared by PW-1 Jai Krishan, which was signed by the witnesses and thereafter, complaint was filed before the learned Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 trial Court. The respondent was tried by the learned trial Court as above, leading to his acquittal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The main witness can be said to be PW-1 Jai Krishan, Forest Guard, who has stated that when he went for patrolling in the area, eight trees of Deodar were found cut. He stated that there were signs of carriage of timber upto the house of respondent and he reached there and recovered eight cut trees. He stated that in presence of the witnesses, the accused stated at that time that he had brought the timber and he recovered the same and gave it on sapurdari vide Ext.PB and also prepared damage report. The first fact which arises for consideration is as to whether the timber was found in the house of the respondent as stated by this witness. The Second question which arises for consideration is as to whether the respondent made any admission of the guilt and agreed to pay the compensation of the money in presence of the witnesses. However, statement of PW-1 Jai Krishan has not been corroborated by the other witnesses examined by the complainant. A perusal of the damage report Mark X-3 shows that a damage report was prepared in presence of PW-3 Ahemdulla, but the respondent had refused to pay the compensation. A perusal of Ikrarnama of accused shows that it was allegedly thumb marked in presence of Loki Nand, Nudhu Ram and Hasham and had been given on sapuradri to Ahemdulla. On the back of this Ikrarnama Ext.PA, it was mentioned that on enquiry it was found that these trees were cut by the respondent and it also allegedly does not bear the signatures of these persons named above except the verification done by the B.O. 3 A perusal of statement of PW-1 Jai Krishan does not clearly show that this timber was recovered from the house of the respondent. He admitted that there is no house of the respondent near that place. However, he has stated that at that time PWs Loki Nand and Nudhu Ram were present there and apart from them Hasham and Ahemdulla were present there, in whose presence respondent confessed his guilt. However, he admitted that the signatures of respondent are not there on damage report Ext.PA. Out of the said witnesses named by the complainant, PW-2 Nudhu Ram was examined by the prosecution, but turned hostile. He has clearly stated that he has not seen the trees having been cut and that any damage report was prepared. PW-3 Ahemdulla also turned hostile when examined by the prosecution. His statement rather shows that the B.O. was also present at that time. The said B.O. has also been examined by the prosecution. PW-5 Munishwar Dass had only verified Ext. PA and had proved the notification Ext. PB. He further stated that he did not conduct any enquiry from the respondent. PW-6 Hamender Sain had stated that he was posted as B.O. at that time and that he had demanded compensation, but nowhere stated that he was present at that time as stated by PW-3. It is clear from the above discussion of the evidence produced by the prosecution that the statement of Forest Guard PW-1 has not been corroborated by any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution in regard to the recovery of timber or in regard to the admission made by the respondent in their presence. The solitary statement of PW-1 Jai Krishan cannot be said to be sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent, and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial 4 Court leading to acquittal of the respondent cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent stand discharged. May 26, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ) (BSS) Judge 5