IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 180/2004 Date of decision: 29. 9. 2010 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Parkash Chand & Ors. ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 4. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Respondents were acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 379 Indian Penal Code and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. Hence the instant appeal by the State. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. On 17.10.2001 PW1 Anant Ram, Deputy Ranger was informed telephonically by the Rang Officer, Junga about illicit 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - felling of trees in ‘Mandhol’ protected forest, thus he requested him to accompany to find out the extent of illicit felling. Said Range Officer along with forest Guards Jagdish, Murat Singh, Sohan Lal and Prem Singh visited the said forest. They detected the illicit felling of nine trees of different species. Some logs/scants were found lying on the spot and some missing. The logs/scants found on the spot were seized and handed over on sapurdari to one Bahadur Singh. Thereafter few more scants of the Devdar and Kail species were recovered by them from a Dhara (temporary structure), allegedly belonging to Bhagwan Singh. Thereafter, a complaint was made to the police on the basis of which FIR was registered under the Sections aforesaid. During the investigation, police prepared the site plan. Block Officer Roshan Lal produced five planks to the police allegedly recovered from the respondents which were taken into possession by the police and given on Sapurdari to Bhagwan Chand Forest Guard. 4. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and ultimately found - 3 - complicity of the respondents with the alleged offence, thus presented the challan in the court for the trial of the respondent. 5. Respondents were accordingly charge sheeted. They abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 6. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondents denied the circumstances which were found attendant upon each of them. Their case was denial simplicitor. 7. At the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted, as they could not be connected either with the recovery or the alleged felling of trees. 8. At the very out set, it is pertinent to note that the Range Officer, who headed the forest officials to the spot, was not examined. PW1 Roshan Lal B.O. and PW5 Forest Guard Murat Singh, the members of the said party are stated to have detected illicit five trees of kail and three trees of devdar in the forest. Logs were lying on the spot and - 4 - were taken into possession. But to that effect, there is no memo on record. The timber allegedly recovered from the ‘dhara’ owned by Bhagwan Singh, could also not be linked with his ownership and possession. The alleged admission before the forest officials of one of the respondents Kali Ram to the effect that he had cut trees from the said forest cannot be taken to be a gospel truth for want of corroborating evidence and there is also no document to that effect. 9. The entire recovery of the alleged timber effected by the Forest officials is from an open place. There is no direct even for that matter indirect evidence against the respondents with respect to the felling of the trees by any of the respondents. The recovered timber could also not be linked with the alleged illicit felling. The timber aforesaid has also not been claimed by any of the respondents. 10. Also, prosecution has failed to prove that the forest in question was a protected forest as no notification to - 5 - this effect has been placed and proved on record. 11. On the scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, the complicity of the respondents with the alleged offence stands not proved. Thus, in my opinion, learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents by giving them the benefit of reasonable doubt. As the findings of the acquittal are borne out from the record, therefore, it requires no interference. Hence the appeal is devoid of any merit as such dismissed. September, 29, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)