1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 518 of 2001. Decided on: July 03, 2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Swaroop Singh. ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): According to the prosecution case, PW2 Raghubir Singh, the then Forest Guard was on checking duty of his beat in Badoul forest. He found 33 logs of two Chil trees on the spot. He chalked out the damage report Ex.PW1/B in the name of unknown persons. Kehar Singh, Ranger took the logs to the forest hut and gave it on supurdari to PW3 Kishan Chand. The value of the said trees was Rs.8,148.80 paise. The supurdarinama Ex.PW3/A was prepared on 17.4.1991. PW5 Shri Uma Dutt, Forest Ranger conducted the inquiry in the village of the respondent in the presence of Pradhan Nanak Chand, PW6 Mangat Ram and PW7 Madan Lal. It is alleged that in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses, the respondents Swaroop Singh and Gurbachan Singh (dead) confessed having felled two Chil trees and they were ready to pay Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 the compensation on 25th April, 1991. To this effect, a joint statement Ex.PW5/A of both the persons was recorded. The said statement was signed by PW6 Mangat Ram, PW7 Madan Lal and one Shri Nanak Chand. The respondent herein and his accomplice did not pay the amount of compensation, as such the complaint was filed in the Court by the forest Range Officer. On the allegations of the complainant and after perusing the documents appended with the complaint, the learned trial court found a prima-facie case and charge-sheeted both respondents Swaroop Singh and Gurbachan Singh, for the offence under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, complainant Uma Dutt Range Officer examined himself as PW5 and also examined PW6 Mangat Ram and PW7 Madan Lal, besides examining Supurdar PW3 Kishan Chand and PW1 Dev Raj Deputy Ranger. Gurbachan Singh died during the trial, thus, Swaroop Singh respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. His case was of denial simplicitor. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted on the ground that the contradictory version of the prosecution witness cannot be relied upon and the extra-judicial confession (Ex.PW5/A) is not reliable and is also a very weak type of evidence and the witnesses of this document are contradicting each other, therefore, without any corroboration, it cannot be acted upon. The State felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 3 Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer for the State has forcefully argued that approach of the learned trial court in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution was not correct. According to the him, the very important document whereby the respondent had confessed the crime was ignored on a whimsical ground. According to him, if the evidence of the prosecution is appreciated in the right perspective, the acquittal can be converted into the conviction. Contra, Shri Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal has pointed out that the evidence and the findings of the trial court are reasonable and borne out from the record. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and reappraised the evidence on record. As a matter of fact, there are no eye witnesses in the present case those who have seen the respondents cutting and removing the Chil trees from the protected forest. On the top of it, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the place from where the aforesaid trees were allegedly cut fell within the protected forest, as defined under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act. When the evidence regarding cutting and felling of trees is lacking against the respondent, in that event the ingredients of Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code are also not proved. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the confessional statement Ex.PW5/A, recorded on 17.4.1991 by PW5 Uma Dut, Range Officer, in the presence of PW 6 Mangat Ram and PW7 4 Madan Lal. The independent witnesses PW6 Mangat Ram and PW7 Madan Lal have sharply contradicted each other and in fact PW7 Madan Lal has not supported the prosecution case. PW6 Mangat Ram has stated that he was called on the spot on the said date by the police, when the document Ex.PW5/A was prepared. At that time, SHO alongwith two constables from Police Station Bangana were present. This fact goes contrary to the version of PW5. If it is executed in the immediate presence of police at their behest it is hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, thus not admissible in the evidence at all to fasten the guilt upon the respondent. Further on the examination of the evidence, I also find that the statement of PW2 Raghubir Singh Forest Guard is quite damaging to the prosecution case. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that respondent Swaroop Singh had paid Rs.28,000/- as compensation for felling the said trees which goes to the contrary to the statement of PW3 Uma Dutt, Range Officer, who stated that the compensation was not paid by the respondent and his accomplice. If the alleged extra judicial confession is ignored totally from consideration, there remains nothing against the respondent. The evidence so recorded before the trial court does not meet the warp and woof to the prosecution case and rightly it fell to the doldrums. On the perusal of the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court, I do not find any perversity therein as the 5 findings given by the trial court are borne out from the record. As such, no interference is called for. Resultantly, for the reasons aforesaid, the appeal filed by the State lacks merit and is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. July 03, 2008. (Pds)