IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.17 of 2003. Date of Decision: 1.7.2010. _______________________________________________ Nand Lal. ….Appellant. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate with Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent. : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 332 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14th May, 2000 at about 12.30 a.m. in the night, Head Constable Ranjit Singh (PW5) of Police Post, Mehatpur had organized a naka at Mohalla Lahar of village Charatgarh in which H.C.Nardev Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes . 2 Singh, LHC Sher Bahadur (PW-9), LHC Kishori Lal and Constable Ranbir Singh (PW8) were present. Tractor No. HP- 20-4774 was purportedly driven by the appellant on which Sh.Sita Ram was sitting, was noticed by the police party coming from Badehar side. H.C. Ranjit Singh (PW-5) signaled the driver of the tractor to stop but instead, it is alleged that the appellant who was driving the tractor ignored this, increased the speed of the tractor and rammed it into the police personnel who were part of the naka party. Constable Ranbir Singh (PW-8) is alleged to have sustained injury on his right leg as a result of the act of the appellant. The tractor was found to be loaded with “Chilka” of khair wood meaning small pieces of the skin of the tree which has no use except as fire wood but loosely translated as “bark” by the trial Court. After investigation, the appellant and his co-accused were charged with offences under Sections 307, 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It was also alleged that he had committed offence of transporting the “bark” of khair wood without obtaining any pass from the concerned Divisional Forest Officer, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978. Twelve witnesses were produced by the prosecution in support of this case. Dealing with the case of Sita Ram, the learned court below holds that the evidence on record does not at all establish his complicity as the tractor at that time was being driven by appellant-Nand Lal and Sita 3 Ram was only sitting on the tractor. The court holds that there is not an iota of evidence to show that the act of ramming the tractor into the naka party was premeditated and contemplated by Sita Ram. Thereafter, the court proceeds that the allegation of the prosecution was that the accused persons were transporting forest produce by the tractor without obtaining a pass. On this point, the Court holds: “Again on this point, the police party seems to have conducted no investigation as to from where the forest produce was loaded in the tractor. It is also not shown as to by whom and on whose behalf the forest produce was loaded in the tractor and from where it was being taken”. and exonerates Sita Ram who was sitting in the tractor and against whom the court holds there is no evidence on record. The court, on the evidence recorded holds that the appellant was guilty of contravening the provisions of Rule 17 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 which is an offence punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. On the question of offences under Sections 307 and 427 I.P.C, the Court found that there is no evidence on the record to establish this charge. However, taking into consideration the entirety of the statement of PW-8 Ranbir Singh, the learned court proceeded to convict the appellant under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. On Section 427 I. P. C., the Court holds that it has not been proved by examining any mechanical or other expert 4 witness that the motor-cycle of the police officials had sustained any damage, much less substantial or visible damage. At this juncture, the medico legal certificate of Constable Ranbir Singh (PW-8) may be considered. He was examined by Dr. Nikhil Sharma (PW-1). The injuries found on his body were contused abrasions on both thighs. The injuries were opined were simple in nature. Dr. Nikhil Sharma (PW- 1), who proved this medico legal certificate, is not specific in his evidence as to whether this injury can be caused by a tractor or motor vehicle. In fact, in his cross-examination he states that the injuries cannot be caused by full contact of the bumper of a tractor. He then concludes that the possibility of injuries as found are less likely in a motor vehicle accident. The learned court holds that this is insignificant because the evidence of PW-8 is conclusive on the fact that the tractor was rammed into the naka party. Another eye witness on the spot of the occurrence is H.C. Ranjit Singh (PW-5). He says that in the intervening night of 13th /14th May, 2000 at about 12.30 a.m., tractor bearing No. H.P.20-4774 was coming from Badehar side. He signaled it to stop. However, instead of stopping, the tractor increased its speed and hit Constable Ranbir Singh (PW8) and also his motor cycle H.P-20-2801 standing on the spot. He then states that he ran away from the spot along with other members of the naka party in order to save his life. In his cross-examination he states that they had gone to the spot on the motor cycle and a scooter which 5 was his personal vehicle. He could not tell the number of the scooter which fact also does not find mention in the rukka including its use in the Nakka. In his cross-examination he further states that he had a torch with him which was his personal property and it was not handed over to the Investigating Officer as case property but this fact was not disclosed to the Investigating Officer. He says that all five persons were standing on one side of the road. He was standing in front of all other persons including Ranbir Singh was the last person at the back. PW-8 Constable Ranbir Singh states that H.C. Ranjit Singh signaled the appellant to stop but he rammed the tractor into the naka party as a result of which he sustained injuries on his legs etc. The motor cycle was also damaged. The other members of the naka party saved themselves with great difficulty. In his cross-examination he states that he does not remember about Sher Bahadur, who was the member of the naka party, and was mentioned in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There he has disclosed the name of H.C. Karnail Singh but that was a mistake according to him. The scooter was at the distance of about 10 feet from the motor cycle. He says that he was standing all alone with his motor cycle. The motor cycle was parked on the side of the road. He says that he fell down on the road. The evidence of these eye witnesses has to be considered at the first instance. What is significant to notice is 6 that in Ext.PJ which is the spot map, there is no scooter which is shown on the road. What has happened to it remains a mystery. Apart from the major contradictions on record, one significant fact needs to be noticed and that is according to PW-5 Ranjit Singh, he was the first person of naka party and all of them were standing in a line with this injured at the end. It is strange that the tractor should have been deliberatively rammed into PW-8 Ranbir Singh without in any manner injuring the other accused. The trolley loaded with “Chilka” of khair wood was also hitched to the tractor and it is strange that if the tractor was being driven at a fast speed how this person escaped from serious injury. Even the medical evidence and the nature of injury do not suggest that PW-8 being hit by the tractor. The incident took place at 11.30 p.m at night. The witnesses have identified the number of the vehicle. But leaving that aside, the evidence of the doctor does not support the case of the prosecution that any deliberate attempt has been made by Nand Lal to ram his tractor into the naka party. The act, if any, may have been accidental but is not premeditated as there is no evidence on the record to substantiate this. Turning to the other important aspect of the case, there is no evidence on record to show that from where the so called wood had been taken and where it was being transported. It is a khair wood “Chilka” which is used as fuel 7 wood. It could have been gathered from anywhere and could be transported without attracting the provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Rule 11 of the H.P. Forest Produce (Land Routes) Transit Rules, 1978 enacted pursuant to the provisions of Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Rule 11 (3) which reads: “11(3) No person shall transport or cause to be transported any timber except firewood, pulp-wood and bamboos unless the timber is properly affixed with an export hammer mark by the forest Officer so authorized by the Conservator of Forests concerned”. A bare perusal of the photographs of the tractor Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 would show that there were small pieces of waste pieces of wood which can hardly be put to any use except for being used as fire wood. The learned court, without considering the exemption under Rule 11 has gone to invoke Rule 17 of the Rules to hold that there has been a violation. The reasoning of the learned court is that Sita Ram was only sitting on the tractor and he has not been connected by the police with any offence and he was acquitted of the charge because the source of this bark wood etc. was not known. If that be so for Sita Ram, the same line of reasoning was to be used for the appellant. In any event, Rule 11 was absolutely clear in its operation. So far as the injury of PW-8 is concerned, there is no evidence on record to show that it is a direct consequence of the appellant having either having been rammed. 8 I do not find that there is any evidence on record to link the appellant with the commission of the offences. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction by the court below is quashed and set aside. Bail bonds furnished by the appellant are discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. July 1, 2010(R)