IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 415 of 2001. Date of decision: 23.5.2008 State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Bhim Singh ….. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Y.K. Thakur, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge ( Oral). The State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 22.5.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chopal, in Case No.14-1 of 2001, acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 17.1.2000 Jeet Singh Forest Guard was patrolling in Snog-Dehat Lalo Beat and he found that respondent-accused had cut 12 trees of different categories. He summoned the respondent, prepared damage report Ex.PW-1/A, recorded confessional statement Ex.PW-1/B of respondent and thereafter sent the damage report to concern Range Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… Officer, who conducted the investigation. PW-3 Lachmi Ram Patwari verified the land from where the trees were cut and on completion of investigation, complaint was presented in the Court under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Accordingly, notice of accusation was put to respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined four witnesses. Statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Magistrate on conclusion of trial, acquitted the respondent, hence state has come in appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and Mr. Y.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the prosecution has proved that respondent had cut 12 trees of different categories from the Govt. land. He has submitted that damage report Ex.PW-1/A, confessional statement Ex.PW-1/B of respondent coupled with other evidence on record has proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Magistrate has misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence on record and has erred in acquitting the respondent. Mr. Y.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against respondent. The land from where the trees were allegedly cut was not demarcated in order to identify that such land belongs to Government. There is no eye witness of the actual cutting of the trees. The confessional statement Ex.PW-1/B has not been proved nor it is admissible in law. The …3… learned trial Magistrate after due appreciation of the evidence on record has rightly acquitted the respondent. 4. PW-1 Jeet Singh Forest Guard Throch Beat has stated that on 17.1.2000 he had patrolled Lalo beat. He found on the spot that 12 trees were cut and there was an orchard on that place. The trees were cut by respondent. He prepared damage report Ex.PW- 1/A in presence of Halqua Patwari and Layak Ram. He also obtained signature of respondent on confessional statement Ex.PW-1/B. He obtained demarcation report from Patwari. In cross-examination he has stated that he got the information of illicit felling on 16.1.2000. The orchard on the spot is 13-14 years old. PW-2 Layak Ram has stated that beat guard Jeet Singh took him on the spot where the trees were cut by respondent who after encroaching the land had planted apple trees. The beat guard got his signature on Ex.PW1/B at point-A. In cross-examination he has stated that orchard is about 2-3 years old. The cut trees and stumps were on the spot. There were about 14-15 stumps. He denied that he does not have good relations with the respondent. PW-3 Lachmi Singh Patwari has stated that he visited the spot along with beat guard Jeet Singh. On spot he found that owner of khasra No.160 is Bhim singh, then said that his father is the owner. He was declared hostile and was cross- examined by the prosecution. He has proved tatima Ex.PW-3/A, jamabandi Ex.PW-3/B, he has stated that respondent has unauthorized possession on the land. He has stated that confessional statement Ex.PW-1/B is signed by him as well as …4… respondent. In cross-examination on behalf of the respondent he has stated that demarcation was done on the spot by using chain. PW-4 Megh Ram Block Officer, Lalo Block has stated that damage report Ex.PW-1/A was received in the Range Office. He investigated the case. In cross-examination he has admitted that demarcation was not conducted by Patwari in his presence. The respondent has denied the prosecution case in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. The prosecution witnesses have not proved the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. There is no eye witness about the cutting of 12 trees by the respondent as claimed by prosecution. PW-1 Jeet Singh has stated that he obtained the signature of respondent on confessional statement Ex.PW-1/B He has not stated that Ex.PW-1/B is signed by any other witness. PW-2 Layak Ram has stated that beat guard got his signature on Ex.PW- 1/B at point –A. PW-2 has not stated that Ex.PW-1/B was also signed by respondent. PW-1 or PW-2 have not stated that respondent made the confessional statement Ex.PW-1/B and thereafter it was signed by respondent and Layak Ram. PW-1 has stated that orchard planted by respondent is about 13-14 years old whereas PW-2 has stated that such orchard is about 2-3 years old. There is no demarcation report on the record in order to show that 12 trees were actually cut from khasra No.160. PW-3 has stated that confessional statement Ex.PW-1/B was signed by him as well as by respondent. He has not stated that any other witness signed Ex.PW-1/B nor he has stated …5… that after making the statement respondent signed Ex.PW-1/B. In State of H.P. vs. Ravi Kumar, Latest HLJ 2008(1) 364, this Court after noticing State of H.P. vs. Tara Chand and others (1994) (4) SLJ 3333 has held that confessional statement recorded by forest officials is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, therefore, Ex.PW- 1/B cannot be used by the prosecution against the respondent. The learned trial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record and the view taken by him is possible view from the evidence on record. The prosecution has failed to make out any case for interference. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge May 23, 2008 (sks)