1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 322 of 2001. Date of decision: 25-11-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. -versus- Soban Dass and others. Respondents. 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: No.1. : Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate. For the respondent No.2 : Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent No.3 : T.C. Sharma, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (oral) The State has felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court in Criminal case No. 267/2 of 1999/93 decided on 9-11-2000 on the ground that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the proper perspective and at the same time, it has set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution evidence. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that in the year 1992, PW10 Bohra Ram Forest Guard was posted at Forest Inspection Barrier at Parwanoo. On 16.10.1992, he along with Lekh Ram (PW3) timber watcher were checking the trucks the said Barrier near Shivalik Hotel. They intercepted Truck No. HP-09-207 wherein Driver Soban Dass was found sitting. On inquiry, he disclosed that this vehicle was loaded with bags of apple. He demanded the documents from him but in turn, the Driver told him that the documents of the goods loaded therein were with the owner who had gone to deposit the tax at the Barrier. Thereafter, the said Forest Guard with the assistance of timber watcher aforesaid, checked the vehicle and discovered 68 scants of Deodar kept concealed under the apple bags. He Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 informed the Deputy Ranger Dalip Singh who was the Incharge of the Barrier and all of them started further checking of the truck. The apple bags were un-laded. Ranger Officer Sant Ram (PW1) was informed. The Forest Guard chalked out the damage report Exhibit PW10/A around 1.45 P.M. He applied the seizure hammer and prepared the list of timber Exhibit PW1/A. The Range Officer aforesaid, prepared the report Exhibit PW1/B and sent it for registration of the case to the Police along with the list of the timber. The police registered the F.I.R. Exhibit PW18/B on the complaint of the Forest Ranger. Thereafter proceeded to the spot and took the timber into their possession. The seized timber was given on supurdari of PW Prem Dutt and a memo Exhibit PW7/A was prepared. The truck and its papers were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PW10/A. During the investigation, it revealed that 68 scants of timber were loaded from Dehan Ghati. The owner of the timber was respondent Balak Ram. He was also arrested. The said timber was alleged to have been felled and lifted from the Kufra/Dehan Dhar forest. As such, the respondent Dina Nath Forest Guard also arraigned the accused for conspiracy. After the completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondents under Section 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act, Section 379 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents were charge-sheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. The respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the circumstances which were found attendant upon them. However, no defense evidence was led. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record in detail. On the scrutiny of the evidence on record, I find that there are material contradictions in the statements of Bora Ram (PW10) and PW3 Lekh Ram, Timber 3 Watcher who had intercepted the truck in question. According to Bora Ram, the Driver of the said truck was the respondent, Soban Dass and he was found sitting in the cabin of the vehicle but PW3 Lekh Ram Timber-watcher though turned hostile to the prosecution but clearly stated in the cross-examination that no person was found sitting in the vehicle including any Driver. Further, PW1 Sant Ram Range Officer was called at the Forest Barrier by PW10. He has categorically stated in his cross-examination that he did not know as to who, how and where the respondent Soban Dass was apprehended. The Police also did not take into possession the Log Book of the said truck during the investigation in order to find out as to who was the Driver of the said truck at the relevant time. Dina Nath (PW5) is said to be the owner of the truck. He also did not support the case of the prosecution but in cross-examination he has stated that he had deputed Mohan Lal in addition to Soban Dass as the Driver of the truck. He further stated that at the time of the alleged incident, Soban Dass was on leave. Damage Report prepared by the Forest Guard Exhibit PW10/A on the day of alleged occurrence is of course signed by Forest Guard Bora Ram. The signatures of Soban Dass were alleged to have been obtained on the Iqbalnama which is a blank proforma. Even the date as to when his signatures were obtained has not been mentioned. Further, Mark-B, the statement of Soban Dass recorded by PW1 Sant Ram Range Officer on 16.10.1992 purported to be under Section 76 of the Indian Forest Act reveals that Soban Dass was not having the knowledge of loading of the timber in the truck. It is stated by him that on 15.10.1992, Birju Ram met him at the place known as “Chhaila” and told him to load his apple for Chandigarh. When the apples were being loaded, he was offered liquor by Birju Ram and around 11.00 P.M, he came to him and told him that apples have been loaded in the truck. Since he was drunk, Birju Ram arranged for another Driver who brought it up to Chamain and thereafter the apple load truck was handed over to him. He did not know about the 4 loading of the timber. Birju Ram was accompanying the Truck. Presuming if the respondent Soban Dass was the Driver, then in absence of his knowledge about loading of the timber in the truck is found absent. On the strength of the aforesaid evidence, firstly the prosecution could not prove that at the relevant time, Soban Dass respondent was the Driver of the said Truck and secondly, if the statement Mark-B is taken into consideration, even then his knowledge with respect to the loading of the timber is found missing, therefore he cannot be said to have committed the offence alleged. There is absolutely no evidence worth its name against the other respondents with respect to felling of trees from the Jungle aforesaid and also regarding its loading and transportation. PW2 Partap Singh who is alleged to have loaded the apple in the truck, PW4 Janak Kumar labourer with him, PW5 Dina Nath the owner of the truck, PW6 Meena Ram who is alleged to have been a witness to a place pointed out by the respondent Balak Ram with respect to the loading of the timber, PW8 Mohinder Singh an employee of the Check Post, PW9 Madan Lal a witness of seizing of the truck at Parwanoo and PW16 Rakesh Verma did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. As such, virtually, it was a case of no evidence against them. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid material contradictions and the fact that the witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution, could not prove the case in accordance with law against the respondents. The charge of conspiracy stands not proved beyond doubt what to talk of other offences charged. Therefore, on re- appreciation of the evidence on record, I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. As such, the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. November 25 , 2008. (bm) 5