IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 423 of 2003 Decided on: 24.5.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Mahant Hari Dass & ors. ..…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1No For the appellant : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. For the respondents : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja,J. (Oral) This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, dated 24.4.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 379 IPC and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a report was lodged with the police by Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Naresh Kumar that six Kikkar trees have been cut by the accused persons from Khasra Nos. 35 and 27, belonging to the panchayat. On this report, a case was registered and after 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes 2 investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents for the offences, as detailed above, leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. From the perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that in the report lodged with the police Ext.PW2.A, it was alleged by the complainant Naresh Kumar that the trees have been got cut by Mahant Hari Dass some days ago. It was no where alleged that these trees were got cut by him personally or with the assistance of other respondents. It was alleged therein that Mahant Hari Dass was asked in this regard who had stated to have obtained the permission from Pardhan Dhani Ram, who had gone for treatment. After the return of the Pradhan, it was alleged that no permission had been granted by him and hence, the report was lodged with the police. To substantiate this question, the prosecution has examined PW1 Naranjan Singh who has alleged that six trees were got cut by Hari Dass. In cross-examination he has stated that these trees were cut by Vinod and Kamal and he does not make a reference to the presence of respondent Hari Dass. He stated that when these trees were cut he was along present at the spot and, therefore, he rules out the possibility of other witness having witnessed the occurrence. He also admitted a dispute with Mahant Hari Dass which had gone up to the Supreme Court. PW2 Naresh Kumar whose presence has been ruled out by PW1 Naranjan Singh stated that six trees were got cut by the respondent and when he enquired, they stated that they have obtained permission from Pardhan Dhani Ram. 3 In cross-examination he has stated that these trees were cut in his presence and he also states that Narender Singh was not present at the spot meaning thereby that he rules out the possibility of PW1 Naranjan Singh having witnessed the occurrence. He also admits a dispute in between Pradhan and Mahant Hari Dass which had gone up to the Supreme Court. PW3 Gurdeep whose presence was not stated by either of the two witnesses has stated that these trees were got cut by Mahant Hari Dass, meaning thereby he rules out the possibility of the presence of PWs 1 and 2 at the time of cutting of trees. He also admits a dispute in between Hari Dass and others in regard to the land of the Thakardwara. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen Mahant Hari Dass at the time of cutting trees. 4. It follows from above discussion that the evidence of the three witnesses are contradictory and do not corroborate one another. Apart from this, the demarcation was also taken from PW5 Mohinder Singh, Kanungo of the disputed Khasra numbers from which allegedly the Kikkar trees were cut. In his report he has not stated that he took measurement after fixing permanent points. He is silent about the permanent points taken at that time or adjoining Khasra numbers which were measured at the spot. Therefore, his report is no help to the prosecution since it does not establish that the demarcation was taken from the Kanungo in accordance with law by fixing permanent points or the adjoining khasra numbers were also measured at the spot. The net conclusion drawn by the trial court that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case 4 beyond reasonable doubt cannot be termed as perverse, calling for an interference by this Court. 5. In view of above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P. and same is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by respondents stand discharged. (V.K. Ahuja), Judge. May 24, 2010 (vs)