IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal.No.: 538 of 2003. Date of decision: 5.08.2010. State of H.P. … Appellant Versus Bhaginer & others … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. J.S Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, For respondent No.1 Mr. Narinder Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. Vinay Thakur Advocate. For respondent No.4 : Mr. Romesh Verma 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 C.J.M Kinnaur at Recong Peo dated 31.7.2003 vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them for the commission of offences under Section 33 Indian Forest Act and 379 IPC read with section 34 I.P.C . 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 5.10.1995 PW-1 Kavir Chand, Forest Guard reported to the police that he had detected illicit felling in UPF-28 on 29.9.1995. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 He reported that nine dry Kail and nine green Kail trees were found cut and about 15 trees were converted into logs or ballies. He has alleged that he came to know from a secret informant that these have been cut by the accused persons . He prepared damage report dated 29.9.1995 but the accused persons refused to sign the said damage report. On 30.9.1995 he again visited the spot and found 34 planks and 20 karis were found stolen from there. He tried to search the same but these were not recovered. He was also informed by some secret informant that these have been kept in the ‘Khad’ by the accused. Thereafter, the case was registered. During investigation the accused are alleged to have been made disclosure statement and got recovered about 123 planks and sleepers at their instance and accordingly after the investigation the challan was filed before learned trial Court. Learned trial Court tried the respondents for the offences as detailed above leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record with care. 4. From the appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution it is clear that the case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the alleged disclosure statement made by one of the accused which has been proved in evidence as EX.PW1/B. The same was written by PW-1 Kavir Chand, Forest Guard, who has stated that only Bhaginer was present at the spot and he recorded the confessional statement EX.PW1/B which the accused refused to sign. Once accused refused to sign the alleged disclosure statement, it can not be said to be a disclosure statement made by an accused voluntarily leading to the recovery of the articles which can be linked herein. Therefore, this confessional statement of Bhaginer EX.PW1/B was inadmissible in evidence. The other material witnesses were PW-6 and PW-7. PW-2 3 Feendu Ram Deputy Ranger, has stated that he was posted as Ranger at that time. He has stated that he went to the Forest along with the police officials and recovered 100 nugs, 20 karis and other trees which were taken in possession by the police and were handed over to Kavir Chand Forest Guard. The recovery of these articles have not been effected in accordance with law and it cannot be linked with the accused persons. He simply stated that these were recovered from the Forest and were taken in possession. His evidence is therefore, not material. 5. PW-5 Rattan Sigh the then Pradhan of Panchayat has stated that the Police officials had investigated the case regarding cutting of the trees. Bhaginer was called and was interrogated. He has stated during investigation that he had cut one tree and his statement EX.PW5/A was recorded. However, he does not state that it was written by any police official or Forest Officers. He has not reproduced the words used by the accused in making such statement. He has also not stated that any recoveries were effected in pursuance of the said disclosure statement and as to who recorded said statement and who were the witnesses to the same. Therefore, his evidence is also not material. 6. PW-6 Jai Pal has stated that they were called by the police and in his presence policed recorded the statement of Basant Ram which was signed by him, but Basant Ram was not present there. He was declared as hostile and was allowed to be cross examined by the learned APP for the State. Nothing material has come up in his testimony also. PW-10 Bhajan Singh H.C has stated that Basant Ram had made a disclosure statement EX.PW9/A. He has no where stated as to what words were used by the accused in making the disclosure statement at that time. He has no where stated who 4 were the witnesses of the said disclosure statement. He however, stated that he had accompanied the accused and his instance some recoveries were effected. However, his statement does not prove that any disclosure statement was made by the accused leading to the recovery of the stolen articles under Section 27 of Evidence Act. 7. The statement of other witnesses are not very material . The learned trial Court in his impugned judgment had concluded that there was no evidence as against three of the accused persons namely Jivan Dass, Basant Ram and Bhaginar and some of the witnesses only have deposed against accused Bhaginer but there is no legal evidence as against Bhaginer and no confessional statement made by him has been proved in accordance with law to link the recovery of these articles with him. 8. On appraisal of the evidence I accordingly hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt and these findings can not be said to be perverse, calling for an interference by this Court. 9. In view of above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed the State which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents stand discharged. (V.K Ahuja), Judge 5th August, 2010 (veena)