HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. App. No. 253i 1992 SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar G §APPELLANT State of Madhya Pradesh (Now 0G.) Versus JREsPONDENTs 1. Dhanush Gond, aged about 24 years, son of Tangu Gone. 2. Bharti Singh aged about 45 years, son of Mansukhar Singh Both are v‘ r/o village Beertola, Police Station Chhui Khadan, District Rajnandgoan (MP) (Now CG) ‘1‘ Agpearance: Shri Pradeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/appellant. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, counsel for the respondents. JUDGMENT (Delivered on 13 ._1 1.2009) 1. This Criminal Appeal preferred by the State is directed against the judgment dated 16.8.1991, delivered in Criminal Case No. 302/91 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khairagrh has, acquitted the respondents und‘er Section 379 of the IPC and Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that one Jitendra Singh Chouhan (PW—4) has sent a written report EX. P/3 at Police Station—Chhui Khadan wherein it was mentioned that in village Hatbanj at his field Bearing Khasra No.92/3 in which two trees of teakwood were standing, were cut down by somebody by Saw x ea and on inquiring from some persons, he came to know that Bharat Singh with the aid of Melaram (PW-3) and segrvants of Bharat Singh haye cut down in his absence and without taking any permission from him, therefore, some action should be taken against them. On the basis of written report EXP/3 by Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Police registered F.I.R. vide Ex.P.4 and seized the cut teak wood vide Ex.P/ 1 and prepared map. Statements under Section ‘161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and after completion of legal fogmalities investigation commenced. “a 3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the ‘Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khairagarh, ho framed charges under Section 379 of the IPC and Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 against the accused/respodents. The charges were read over and explained to the accused/ respondents, who abjured the guilt and stated that they ave been falsely implicated in the case. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khairagarh after appreciation of evidence available on record and hearing the counsel for Vthe respective parties, acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges framed under Section 379 IPC and Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act. a 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties a} length and have also perused the record of the Criminal Case. 6. So far as Section 379 of the IPC and Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act is concerned, it is clear from the evidence of Jitendra Singh Chouhan (PW-4) that Patwari Halka No.24, Khasra No.92/3 is his larid,,,i\n which, near about 60 trees of teak woo Alv. d were standing, out of which, two trees were cut down by w n h trees and he persons were they stopped. were carrying were present somebody. He was informed by Agrahij (PW—2) that Bharat Singhrand field and saw his that servants two trees have out have down been his cut trees. down, He theleafter; went to the he reported the matter to the police. In cross examination, he admitted that Bharat Singh is crippled by hand and he did not know who cut down the trees. . Keslal (PW—1) has stated that the trees, which were cut down, were in the field of gitendra Singh Chouhan [PW-4). He also V Stated that Kotwar had seen the persons who were cutting the shouted. Jitendra Singh went there and saw He stated ‘that there was a bullock cart and the accused In cross examination, he sated that on the spot the trees in the bullock cart. Melararn, Dhanshu Melararn (PW—3) and Bharat and his servants‘were on the spot. carrying the wood in that bullock cart to which Melaram, Dhanshu and Munshi Shrivastava were seen and they and Munshi Shrivastava have not been made accused. 8. On perusal of evidence of Krishna (P.W.5), Agrahij (RWQ) and Sukritram (P.W.7), it is evident that these witnesses saw Bharat Singh, Melalrarn Patel, Dhansuram, Tanguram and Manaran there and were transporting the same by bullock cart. However, these witnesses did not witness that the teak trees were cut by those persons who were present there. 9. Melaram (PW-3) had stated that teak tree cut by, somebody, which was found in his fleld. He saw and reported the matter 0 to Munshi Shrivastava. He also stated that Munshi Shrivastava told him to carry the wood to Naka then he went to bring the bullock cart and sputthat wood in the bullock cart. Thereafter, villagers came there and they did not allow carrying the wood in p1 the bullock cart. He stated that he had not reported the matter to any Police Station. He also stated that he did not know who ‘9 cut the trees. he stated that the accused/respondent Bharat was not there. 10. On perusal of the above statement, it is clear that Bharat is crippled by hand and the field belonged to Melaram (PW—3) and Jitendra Singh Chouhan (PW—4). Nobody witnessed the cutting of teak trees, but the trees, which were already cut and were lying on the field, Were alleged to have been taken by the accused persons. The villagers went to the spot and the matter was reported to the police. However, according to the above witnesses,-Bharat, Melaram and their servants were there. Keslal (PW-1) and Agrahij (PW—2) saw» Bharat, Melaram, Dhanshu, Tangu and Manharan were present on the spot and they were loading the wood (cut down trees) in the bullock cart. According to Melaram (PW-3), he also does not know who cut the trees, but the cutting teak trees were lying in his field and he reported the matter to the police. The Forester Sitaram and Munshi Shrivastava told him to put those trees at Naka, therefore, they were going to put those trees at Naka. Jitendra Singh Chouhan (PW-4) stated that one teak wood tree was lying in his field and he does not know who cut that tree. According to him, Agrahij told him Bharat Singh and his servants had cut those trees. ’According to Agrahij (PW—2) he had also not seen who cut the trees, but he had seen that the accused persons along with three other persons were loading the trees in the bullock cart. Krishna (PW—5) had also stated the names of Melaram and Tangu. Sukritram (PW—7) had also stated about Melaram and Tangu a; MVI, g ll; Thus, from thewabove statements, it is clear that though there were so many persons present on the spot and the \ ' l . accused / reSpondents there, Police had mad There are contradich J the 1nc1dent of cum rehable Agrahl] (PW 2) (PW 5) mforme was also the d h1m and he went to the spo ‘is 0bv1ous from h1s test1mony that he ha of Melaram, accused b accused / respondents 1n the crtme 12. Aft trial them benefrt of doub ho were also present on the It 1s the duty of the se beyond reasonable doubt, whxch was not done. g harat Singh and Dhanshu were not e them as accused leavmg other persons. the w1tnesses he has not seen 'ons 1n the statements of all 1tendra Smgh Chouhan ng teak (PW trees 4) had therefore stated that hls ev1dence 1s not had stated that Chattram and Krxshna t Sukntram (PW 7 harat, Dhanshu, n1 B ent on the spot, but it lso stated the names had not been made re and accordmg to h1 Melaram, Tangu and Manaran were pres Tangu and Manharan who Therefore, prove the comphctty of the adopted ptck and choose method to y the prosecution the prosecunon has t 1t appears that the learned er perusal of the Judgmen g the y error of law 1n acquttttn Court has not cornrmtted a t as sed/respondent by giving Tangu, and Manharan, w spot, have not been mad prosecution to prove its ca e accused. aCCu Melaram, of the above, the acquittal of the s well mented and does no d by the State 1 In view accused/respondents 1 interference. dismissed and it is ac The appeal file cordingly dismissed. /'/ Sdl- (R Jhamvm. ’Ja/ e ‘13. t call for any s liable to be {/A /, / $ B