IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 308 of 2003. Date of Decision: 5.8.2010. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus. Gian Chand and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent. : Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents for offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that truck bearing No. HPK-8497 in which both the respondents-accused were present on inspection of the vehicle by the police it was found carrying 34 logs of Simbal and 441 bamboos. The truck was taken into possession. First Information Report was lodged and the respondents were charged for the offences as alleged. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes . 2 3. The learned trial Court, has acquitted both the accused on the ground that the testimony of PW1 ASI Devinder Kumar, PW8 HHC Jagdish and PW9 SI Jagjit Singh, who was supposed to be the witnesses on the spot, do not corroborate to each other. According to the prosecution case, these contradictions relate to the presence of these police officials on the spot and preparation of the rukka. However, PW2 Sham Lal, who was an independent witness, turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. The court also considered the statement of PW5 Subhash Chand, who has denied that he was even associated with the preparation of Ext.PW5/A. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court, acquitted the accused. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the court below has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution. In particular, she refers to the evidence of PW1 ASI Devinder Kumar, PW7 Constable Kuldeep Singh, PW8 HHC Jagdish Chand and PW9 SI Jagjit Singh, who according to her corroborated the case of the prosecution against the respondents. 5. Turning to the evidence of PW1 Devinder Kumar, what I find from is that the so called seizure has been made at around 8.30 a.m. in the morning when all the shops in Gagret bazaar where the purported seizure has been made were open. The learned trial Court holds that the seizure being effected at that time in the morning, no effort has been 3 made by the police to associate an independent witness. This fact would assume significance because of the fact that all the witnesses are police personnel. I am not for a moment laying down that the evidence of police officials cannot be accepted but in the facts and circumstances of the case and more especially when PW2 Sham Lal and PW5 Subhash Chand have not supported the case of the prosecution, it is all the more important to scrutinize the testimony of these witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, carefully. 6. The learned trial court holds that the preparation of the rukka is itself doubtful. PW8 Jagdish Chand has stated in his evidence that rukka Ext.PW9/A was drawn up by PW1 ASI Devinder Kumar which is contradicted by the evidence of PW9 Jagjit Singh, who says that the rukka was drawn up by him in the presence of the police officials at the spot. 7. The learned trial Court holds that PW1 ASI Devinder Kumar has stated that the truck was unloaded on the spot with the help of some local labourers and the truck was removed to the police station from the spot. He is not aware as to who was present on the spot as he left the spot immediately after unloading of the truck. PW7 Constable Kuldeep Singh states that the wood was unloaded by some private labourers and was also got loaded by them but PW8 Jagdish Chand states that the truck was unloaded by the police officials themselves at the spot. PW9 ASI Jagjit Singh deposes that it was unloaded with the help of local people. There is total confusion which has been created by the police 4 personnel with respect to the seizure and unloading of the truck etc. There is also no concord between these witnesses as to who was present on the spot and in whose presence the truck was loaded and unloaded etc. 8. Adverting to the evidence of PW5 Subhash Chand, the trial Court holds and rightly so that his statement cannot be accepted. Ext.PW5/A vide which accused Gian Chand identified the spot from where the alleged trees were felled by him has not been proved on record. PW5 submits that none of these proceedings were drawn up in his presence. 9. In these circumstances, there is nothing on the record as to what offence was committed by the respondents. So far as PW2 Sham Lal is concerned he has categorically stated that the incident did not occur in his presence. 10. The so called demarcation relied upon by the prosecution has been rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that the Patwari was not competent to demarcate the land. There is also nothing on the record that this witness has followed the High Court rules and orders as applicable for demarcation etc. 11. Therefore, I find no merits in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. August 5, 2010(R) 5