IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2002. Date of decision:23.12.2008. ________________________________________________________ State of H.P. .. ..Appellant Versus Satpal .. ..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Appellant: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Dy.A.G. For the respondent: Mr.T.S. Chauhan, Advocate _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.9.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Criminal Case No.240-1 of 1998 whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 32 & 33 of the Indian Forest Act read with Section 379 IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.3.1998 at about 1.30 p.m. Forest Guard Sh.Sardeep Singh, PW-2 along with Chowkidar Gurbachan Singh, PW-1, were on patrolling duty in Dadoh forest. When they reached Dadoh they saw the accused cutting khair trees. He had kept a gun on one side. He was in the process of removing the bark from the trees and converting the trees into logs. According to the first version as mentioned in the report the accused on seeing them ran …2… away with the gun and axe. The Forest Guard sent Gurbachan Singh to inform the Range Officer and to send staff for help. After about one hour the accused again came there and picked two logs and hid them in bushes. The Forest Guard talked to the Pardhan Kehar Singh through telephone but the Pradhan did not care to come to the spot. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the Range Officer vide report Ext.PW-2/A who further reported the matter to the police vide complaint Ext.PW- 4/A and on the basis of this complaint FIR Ext.PW-7/A was registered. According to the prosecution version, only 10 logs were seized. They were given by the Forest officials on sapurdari to one Sh.Mulakh Raj and later on taken over from him and handed over to PW-2 forest guard. After investigation the police filed the challan. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused and hence the present appeal. PW-2 Sardeep Singh while appearing in the Court has again stated that when he and PW-1 were on patrolling duty they heard the sound of some tree being cut and when they went to the spot they saw the accused cutting the trees and that the accused had converted some of the trees into ten logs. He further states that he went to the village but no villagers came to help them. He also talks about the 10 logs being given on sapurdari to Mulakh Raj. Surprisingly in the statement …3… in Court in examination-in-chief this witness does not say anything about PW-1 being sent to get any help from the Range office. Even PW-1 Gurbachan Singh does not say that he went either to the village or to the Range office to get any help. The version of PW-2 that he went to the village is different from what was stated in the original complaint. In the original complaint it was stated that when PW-1 had left the spot and PW-2 was alone then the accused had come again and hid two logs into bushes. This fact has not been stated by PW-2 while appearing in the witness box. There is another great discrepancy in the prosecution version. Admittedly, only 10 logs were taken into possession by the Forest officials and later by the police. According to the first version these ten logs were seized at the spot itself out of which two logs were hidden in the bushes. However, while appearing in the Court PW-1 states that five logs were recovered from the spot and five near the cow-shed of the accused. PW-2 states that 10 logs were recovered from the spot and four other logs were recovered from the land of the accused. None of these versions tally with the original version and even the number of logs which were actually seized by the forest officials do not tally with these versions. Whereas PW-2 in his original complaint had stated that he had sent PW-1 to inform the forest officials and he himself remained on the spot, Gurbachan Singh is …4… totally silent on this aspect and according to him he remained on the spot. In fact if Gurbachan Singh had gone to the Range Office then obviously some forest officials would have come to the spot. There is no evidence in this regard. The final nail in the coffin of the prosecution version is the statement of PW-5. According to this witness when he went to the spot on 27.3.1998 he saw the accused cutting the khair trees and when he asked him why he was cutting the tree the accused attacked him and then he raised a hue and cry and then Suresh Kumar and Raj Kumar came on the spot. This statement is totally contrary to the entire prosecution case and makes the case of the prosecution extremely doubtful. Therefore, the learned trial Court was totally justified in acquitting the accused. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. December 23, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge