IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2004 Date of Decision: 16th November, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus Laiq Ram & others ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ___________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. For the Respondents: Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The State prefers this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chopal acquitting two accused Laiq Ram, son of Rai Singh and Singhi Ram @ Ram Singh, son of Shri Nanku Ram for offences under Sections 33 of the Indian Forest Act and 379 of the IPC. 2. Before proceeding with the case any further, this Court by its order dated 25.03.2004 while admitting the appeal, directed that the name of respondent No. 2 Singh Ram @ Ram Singh, son of Nanku Ram 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 be struck off from the array of respondents. The effect of this will be considered at a later point of this appeal. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused on 17.3.2000 at around 3.30 P.M. in village Jalholi, when Mangat Ram (PW2) Block Officer, Jhiknipul alongwith Forest Guard Prem Chand and one Singhi Ram @ Ram Singh were on patrolling duty, they say some smoke on the top of the hill. They got suspicious and when they reached the spot, they found that two Deodar trees of Class 1-A had been cut and the accused Laiq Ram and others ran away from the spot on seeing the party. They noticed that the accused had converted the Deodar trees into 22 scant for commercial purposes. Ext.PW1/A is the complaint lodged by PW1 Bhoop Ram, Range Officer, Chopal for registration of the case. It says that while a checking party headed by Mangat Ram, Block Officer, Jhiknipul inspected the forest area, found that two trees of Deodar A-1 Class had been illicitly felled. The offender alongwith the entire party ran away but was recognized by Ran Singh, son of Narabu Ram and Yoginder Chand son of Udam Singh. Only one saw could be recovered from the spot and 22 slippers of Deodar were seized. Report was lodged by the Field Range Officer, Incharge against Laiq Ram son of Rai Singh, resident of Pabar, P.O. Chambi, Tehsil Chopal. FIR Ext.PW11/A records on the narration of these facts. 4. Before the learned trial Court, it was urged that both the accused Laiq Ram and Singhi Ram had conspired to cut and remove the trees from the Government forest and were guilty of offences, as charged. According to the prosecution, evidence of PW2 Mangat Ram, PW3 Sohan Singh and PW5 Prem Chand was of primary importance to fasten liability on the accused. 3 5. I may first notice the evidence of these witnesses of the prosecution as appreciated by the learned trial Court. The Court observes that the prosecution has not placed on record any notification declaring the area to be unprotected/protected forest. Secondly the Court holds that evidence on record does not establish the guilty of any of the accused. The evidence of prosecution was led which implicated both the accused Laiq Ram and Singhi Ram @ Ram Singh. The acts of both the accused were inextricably inter-woven. Considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Court holds that Singhi Ram @ Ram Singh has no where been implicated either in the report or in the oral evidence/testimony of the witnesses namely PW2 Mangat Ram and PW5 Prem Chand. In fact, PW2 stated that Singhi Ram met him on the way and was joined by the patrolling party and when the entire proceedings were over, he also returned to his village. PW5 Prem Chand also says that Singhi Ram had met him in the way and no where implicated him as an accused in the case. The Investigating Officer S.I. Vidhi Chand PW11 was also unable to show as to how Singhi Ram has been arrayed as an accused. The Court holds that the police appears to have arrayed Singhi Ram as an accused in the present case on the basis of statement Ext.PW12/A purportedly made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in which the witnesses have stated that he was also involved in the case. Now if these facts are considered in detail, it becomes clear that the investigation has been fudged and complicity of the accused has not been proved on record. Ext.PW12/A is a statement purportedly made by Laiq Ram that he had concealed the axe in his house with which he had cut the trees alongwith Singhi Ram, whose name now stands deletd from the array of respondents. The learned trial Court rightly rejects this statement as implicating Singhi Ram holding that it does not prove his guilt, but only 4 establish the factum of recovery of the axe. PW8 H.C. Balbir Singh says that Laiq Ram had confessed that he had cut Deodar trees in the Government forest alongwith accused Singhi Ram. This witness has signed Ext.PW12/A as a witness. The learned trial Court holds that this fact is insufficient to impute guilt to either of the accused. This reasoning of the learned trial Court cannot be faulted with. A confession made before a Police Officer is inadmissible in evidence. This is the established law. Ext.PW12/A cannot be used as a confessional statement to convict either of the accused. I refer again to the fact that the prosecution case is one of involvement of both the accused out of whom one has been struck off from the array of accused persons. It is not a case of the prosecution that it was only Laiq Ram who had committed the act and not Singhi Ram. The case against Singhi Ram has been disbelieved by the trial Court and his name has been struck off as an accused in this Court without any objection from the State. I cannot find anything which would implicate the respondent in the commission of the offences as charged. The appeal is therefore dismissed as being without merit. Bail bonds furnished by the accused shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge November 16, 2010(ms)