IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 533 of 2000 Decided on: 23.9.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Thakur Dass & Ors. ..…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. For the respondents : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. R.B. Misra,J. (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 23.12.1999, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 1996/25 of 1997, whereby accused-respondents have been acquitted for the offences, under Sections 147,332,333,307 and 380 readwith Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The prosecution case in brief is that in the year 1995, PW-1 Hoshiar Singh while working as Forest guard in Rahri beat in forest Range, Panarsa and Pw-4 Sohan Singh working as Block Officer, Panarsa received secret information of illicit felling in D.P.F. Chublu and PW-1 and PW-4 left for patrol duty on 29.4.1995. PW-2 Pardeep Kumar, Forest Guard, Ballo beat and PW-3 Gian Singh, Forest Guard Khinni beat had accompanied PW-1 and Pw-4 who found illicit felling of two deodar trees in D.P.F. Chublu on 29.4.1995. On investigation, respondents-accused were held guilty of the aforesaid offences and case was tried and committed to Sessions Court. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses, whereas the accused-respondents through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 4. On scrutiny of prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we made clear that forest officials were not having information prior to 30.4.1995 about illicit felling of trees. In FIR Ext.PW1/A registered by PW-1 Hoshiar Singh, forest Guard on 30.4.1995 at 2.15 P.M. it has been recorded that 8 to 10 persons had assaulted and used criminal force against the forest officials. Culprits were stated to have belaboured the forest officials. As reported in FIR the culprits had blackened their face and tied black cloth around their heads. PW-4 Pardeep Kumar had disclosed the particulars of respondents- accused No. 1 and 2 for the first time who have assaulted and used criminal force against the forest officials. It is also difficult to know how the assailants in the torch light were 3 acknowledged. PW-1 Hoshiar Singh and Pw-2 Pardeep Kumar Forest Guards were stated to have rushed to the house of PW-5 Shri Jalam Singh with a view to save themselves. PW-1 and PW-3 had rushed upstairs to save themselves. PW-2 Pardeep Kumar, Forest Guard, PW-4 Sohan Singh, B.O. were stated to have left behind in the verandah when PW-1 and PW-3 had rushed upstairs. The respondents-accused were stated to have belaboured PW-2 and PW-4 in the verandah of PW-5 Jalam Singh. No witness had stated that the house of PW-5 (Jalam Singh) stopped electrified. No witness had stated that the electric light had been switched on in the verandah of the house of PW-5 facilitating identification of the respondents-accused. In such circumstances, it was difficult to identify the assailants on 30.4.1995 at about 2.00 A.M. either at the temple inn or as the house of PW-5 Jalam Singh. In these backgrounds, PW-1 did not disclose the names of the assailants in the FIR. Therefore, it could safely be inferred that PW-1 to PW-4 could not identify the respondents/accused persons No. 1 and 2 at the first instance. It could also not be possible by the forest office also to identify the assailants at the dead of night especially when the assailants had blackened their faces and had tied black cloth around their heads. More so, the forest officials had not seen the respondents-accused prior to 30.4.1995. 5. PW-10 Chhatar Singh, Range Officer has got FIR No. 42/95, Ext.PW10/A registered at Police Station, Aut. FIR No. 42/95 related to illicit felling of two deodar trees from D.P.F. Chublu. PW-6 Nokh Singh has stated that police had 4 prosecuted the respondents-accused persons other than respondents-accused No. 1 to 9 in FIR No. 42/95. According to PW-5, respondents-accused had not assaulted the forest officials at his premises. As per him forest officials had left his place and had not returned to his house. 6. More so on the strength of the recovery of items Ext.P1 to Ext.P7 the respondents-accused could not be connected with the crime as forest officials could not be definitely said about the goods, therefore, recovery of items Ext.P1 to Ext.P7 was thoroughly doubtful. 7. In view of the analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, the entire prosecution case is a doldrums and identification of the respondents-accused persons is doubtful, recovery is also not ascertained and in view of the contradictions and inconsistencies apparently being noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it could safely be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view, prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused- respondents. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. 8. Bail bonds, furnished by the accused-respondents, are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. September 23, 2010 (V.K. Sharma), Judge. (vs) 5