IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.229 of 2003 Reserved on:19.5.2010 Date of decision: 31.5.2010 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Kamal Kishore and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S.Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondenst: Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J. This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (II), Amb, dated 25.3.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed agasint them under Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 19.2.2002 at about 4.30 P.M. HC Sukhdev alongwith, HC Balbir Singh and Constable Faquir Mohammad were present at Panwra Chowk on Gagret Hoshiarpur road in connection with patrolling as well as checking of forest produce duty and tractor trolley loaded with ballan appeared there from Gagret side. On checking the same, it was found carrying 20 logs of Cheel under the Balan of different sizes. Both the accused were arrested and the logs were taken in possession Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 and a case was registered and after investigation the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents under the aforementioned Sections, leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that there are various contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and in view of number of contradictions found in their testimony, the said evidence was not relied upon by the learned trial Court. PW-1 HC Balbir Singh has stated that they started the journey on two scooters at about 2.00 P.M. and to this effect Rapat was also entered at the Police Station but the copy of the said Rapat was not produced on record. He also stated that on leaving Gagret they also patrolled forest of Gagret as well as Pandara and there they remained for one hour. He has further stated that they had planned at the Police Station itself for the purpose of Naka and reached the spot at 4.15 P.M. 5. PW-9 HC Sukhdev Sing has stated that they proceed to the spot from the Police Station in HRTC bus which is contradictory to the testimony of PW-1 Balbir Singh who stated that they proceeded on scooters and scooter numbers were not given by him which is also one of the reasons for the learned trial Court in not relying upon the testimony of the witnesses. In case the scooters were owned by the witnesses themselves they could easily deposed about their numbers also. 6. Another contradiction referred to in the testimony of witnesses was that PW-1 Balbir Singh stated that they started from Police Station Gagret at 2.00 P.M. and reached the spot at 4.00 P.M. while PW-3 Constable Faquir Mohammad has stated they started the journey from the Police Station at about 3.00 P.M., but he is not aware of the time when they reached the spot. Further, 3 his statement shows that they patrolled the area for about 20-25 minutes in Panwra road and then came back to the spot. On the other hand, Investigating Officer, PW-9 Sukhdev Singh has stated that they started the journey from the Police Station Gagret at 2.00 P.M. and reached the spot at 2.30 P.M. He stated that after leaving the Police Station Gagret, they patrolled in the forest of Gagret and Panwra. In Gagret forest they spent one hour. There is some contradiction in regard to the patrolling done in the area. The Investigating Officer PW-9 Sukhdev Singh had stated that they went to the spot directly. 7. Another ground which had weighed with the learned trial Court was that PW-1 Balbir Singh has stated that marks were put on the wood, after it was captured, with black paint which was also so stated by the Investigating Officer, but PW-3 Constable Faquir Mohammad is specific that no marks were put on the wood taken in possession. 8. Another contradiction was in regard to the reaching at the Police Station after the recovery. PW-1 HC Balbir Singh has stated that they reached the Police Station at 10.00 P.M., while PW-3 Constable Faquir Mohammad has stated that they came back after 5.30/6.00 P.M. and they have stated that they came back together. All these contradictions are minor but when the prosecution statement rests upon the testimony of official witnesses even minor contradictions in their statements cannot be ignored. 9. Apart from the above, another ground which weighed with the learned trial Court was that secret information had been received at Police Station and the Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot for laying a Naka and no independent witnesses were joined at that time though the time of occurrence was 4.30 P.M. and many vehicles and persons had crossed from that place. The non- joining of independent witnesses at the time of search of the tractor 4 had also weighed in the mind of the learned trial Court in disbelieving the prosecution version. 10. Therefore, it follows from the above discussion that the Court could have taken another view but the view taken by the learned trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. There is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents stand discharged. May 31, 2010 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)