1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 131 of 2002. Date of decision: 1.4.2009 State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Baru Ram & others ….. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.7.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chopal in Case No.26-1 of 1997 for offence punishable under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 ( for short Act). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2.3.2000 PW-1 Shiv Ram, Forest Guard found that two trees of deodar class-II/A were cut and converted into 21 logs in Banaha beat. On enquiry from PW-4 Bansi Lal, it was revealed that respondents had cut the trees and converted into 21 logs. The forest guard called the respondents on the spot and in the presence of PW-4 Bansi Lal made an enquiry. The respondents allegedly confessed their guilt and therefore, damage report Ex.PW-1/A was prepared in Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 presence of witnesses, Iqbalnama Ex.PW1/B was also prepared but respondents refused to sign the same. The logs 21 in number were handed over on spurdari vide spurdarinama Ex.PW-1/C to spurdar PW-2 Devi Ram. The investigation was conducted by PW-3 Lachhi Ram, Block Officer and on completion of investigation challan was presented against the respondents for offence punishable under section 33 of the Act and notice of accusation was put to them to this effect, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined four witnesses and placed on record some documents. The respondents were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the prosecution case but did not lead any evidence in defence. On conclusion of trial, learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents on 19.7.2001, hence this appeal. 3. Heard and perused the record. Ex.PW-1/A dated 2.3.2000 is the damage report, in which number of trees allegedly cut and the logs found on the spot have not been mentioned. Iqbalnama Ex.PW-1/B has not been signed by the respondents though it has been allegedly signed by PW-4 Bansi Lal. Ex.PW- 1/C is the spurdarinama signed by PW-2 Devi Ram and PW-4 Bansi Lal. 4. PW-1 Shiv Ram, forest guard has stated that on 2.3.2000, he was patrolling at Banah Dehat and found two trees of Class-II/A were cut and converted into 21 logs . He enquired from Bansi Lal and found that trees were cut by Baru Ram, Ratti Ram and Sher Singh. He made an enquiry from respondents in presence of Bansi Lal and Devi Ram, the respondents confessed 3 their guilt. He prepared damage report Ex.PW-1/A and also Iqbalnama Ex.PW-1/B but respondents refused to sign Ex.PW-1/B. Bansi Lal was at a distance of half K.M. from the spot and grazing the cattle, he called the witnesses after inspecting the spot. He denied that respondents never confessed their guilt. 5. PW-2 Devi Ram did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. In the cross-examination conducted by prosecution he has denied that 21 logs were handed over to him. He denied that respondents confessed their guilt in his presence. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the respondents he has stated that Baru Ram had filed a complaint against Bansi Lal witness. PW-3 Lachhi Ram Forest Block Officer has stated that damage report Ex.PW-1/A was received in the range office. He conducted the investigation. He placed on record notifications mark-X and mark-Y. In the cross-examination he has stated that notifications mark-X and mark-Y were not translated into local language. PW-4 Bansi Lal has stated that respondents had confessed their guilt before Guard but they refused to sign the Iqbalnama Ex.PW-1/B. He has admitted that a similar case was pending against him in the Court 2/3 months earlier. 6. The prosecution has not examined any witness in whose presence two deodar trees Class-II/A were cut by respondents and were converted into 21 logs. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-4 Bansi Lal had given information regarding illicit cutting of trees made by respondents but it has come in the statement of PW-1 Shiv Ram that on the relevant date and time Bansi Lal was grazing cattle at a distance of half K.M. and from 4 there he was called and before that PW-1 Shiv Ram was already on the spot and had seen the cutting of deodar trees and conversion of the trees into 21 logs. In other words the cutting of the trees and conversion into 21 logs of those trees came to the notice of PW-1 of his own and not through the information given by PW-4. Bansi Lal is otherwise not a witness of the fact that trees were cut by respondents in his presence. 7. There is no evidence on record to show that trees were cut by respondents and converted into 21 logs by them. The damage report Ex.PW-1/A does not indicate number of trees cut and converted into logs. In Iqbalnana Ex.PW-1/B there is nothing that the respondents had cut two trees and converted them into 21 logs, this falsifies the case of the prosecution that respondents confessed their guilt by way of Iqbalnama which is otherwise not signed by respondents. PW-2 Devi Ram has denied that the logs were handed over to him on spurdari. He has admitted that Baru respondent had filed a complaint against Bansi Lal which fact has not been denied by PW-4 Bansi Lal, rather he has admitted that a similar case was instituted against him in the Court which was pending 2/3 months ago. In these circumstances PW-4 Bansi Lal is not an independent witness and his testimony cannot be relied in support of the prosecution case. The notification under section 33 of the Act has not been proved on record. The learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record and has committed no error in acquitting the respondents. The view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate is 5 possible, there is no perversity in the impugned judgment, no case for interference is made out. Resultantly, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge April 1, 2009 (sks)