IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 132 of 2002 Date of decision: 31.12.2008 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Hira Lal … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chachiot at Gohar, dated 5.9.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusations put to him under Sections 32/33 of Indian Forest Act. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.12.1994 PW-3 Duni Chand, Forest Guard, alongwith Rattan Lal, Chowkidar, was present in the area of Kandhi Shilh Jungle Beri and they found that 22 trees(5th Class) of different varieties had been found cut and the wood was also lying at the spot. One Prem Chand PW-1 met them and when they enquired from him, he told them that these trees have been cut by the respondent. He also told them that he had seen the respondent cutting the trees. PW-3 Duni Chand, Forest 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Guard, sent some person to call the respondent, who came there and he admitted to have cut the trees. The trees were taken into possession and was given on supardari of Prem Chand. A Damage Report was prepared but the respondent refused to sign the same. A complaint was made to Deputy Ranger and thereafter, the complaint was filed before the learned trial Court. On appearance of the respondent, the learned trial Court issued a notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. to the respondent for offence punishable under Sections 32/33 of the Indian Forest Act and the respondent was tried by the learned trial Court, leading to his acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that out of four witnesses examined by the prosecution, the statements of PW-1 Prem Chand and PW-3 Duni Chand, Forest Guard, can be said to be most material. PW-1 Prem Chand has stated that on 21.12.1994 Forest Guard Duni Chand and Chowkidar Rattan Lal met him while on patrolling and they found 22 trees having been cut. He stated that he told them that these trees have been cut by the respondent present in Court. The respondent was called who admitted having cut the same but refused to sign the Damage Report Ext. PW1/A, which was signed by him and Rattan Lal as witnesses. The cut trees were handed over on his supardari vide supardarinama Ext. PW1/B. His statement Ext. PW1/C was recorded which bears his signatures. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the respondent was present at a distance of 50 Mtr. and he was called by the Guard himself. However, they had not seen - 3 - the respondent cutting the trees at that time. In further cross- examination, he admitted that the respondent is his younger brother and they have separated their land and are cultivating their own land. He denied that there was a dispute regarding Danga, which was dismantled. In his cross-examination, he had no where stated that he had seen the respondent cutting the trees and on which date. He had also not stated that any confessional statement was made by the respondent at that time before PW-3 Duni Chand, Forest Guard and Rattan Lal, Chowkidar. PW-3 Duni Chnd, Forest Guard, has stated that they were present in the area, found 22 trees cut, which were also lying at the spot and Prem Chand, who was passing through the place was enquired and he stated that he had seen the respondent cutting the trees with his own eyes. The respondent was called to the spot who admitted but refused to sign the Damage Report Ext. PW1/A. He prepared supardarinama Ext. PW3/B and sent the report to the Deputy Ranger. In the cross-examination, he admitted that Rattan Lal, Chowkidar was present with them but he has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them, though he was the only independent witness. Since PW-1 Prem Chand is the younger brother of the respondent. He denied his knowledge that in case the relations in between the respondent and PW-1 his brother are not cordial. He never admitted that he had apprehended the respondent cutting the trees at any time. There is nothing in his statement to show that any confessional statement was prepared at that time or the respondent admitted his guilt or whether it was signed by the respondent or not. From the above discussed evidence, it is clear that no witness has stated having seen the respondent cutting the trees and the - 4 - statement of PW-1 Prem Chand in this regard does not inspire confidence. There is nothing on record that any confessional statement was recorded or it was signed by the respondent. In case such a confessional statement had been recorded and had been signed by the respondent, it could have been considered as to whether it was sufficient to prove the case of the complainant, but there is no such statement or direct evidence that respondent was cutting the trees at any time. On appraisal of the above evidence, it is clear that the final findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged forthwith. (V.K. Ahuja), December 31, 2008 Judge (BSS) - 5 -