IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.689 of 2000 Date of Decision : 7.1.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Sarwan Singh …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. J. S. Guleria, Law Officer, For the respondent : Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 12.6.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H. P. in Criminal case No. 126/2 of 1998, titled as State v. Sarwan Singh, acquitting the accused of the charged offence. As per the case of the prosecution, on 20.1.1998 at about 7.30 A.M., ASI Bhoop Ram (PW-8), Shri Arjun Singh (PW- 1), Shri Kamal Kumar (PW-2) and Kuldeep Chand (PW-3) were on patrolling duty at village Joghon, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan , H.P., when they received a secret information that the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 accused habitually indulges into illicit felling of timber from forest land. Rukka Ext. PW-8/A was written and FIR Ext.PW-8/B dated 20.1.1998 was registered with police station, Nalagarh under Section 379 IPC. The police party conducted raid and recovered 7 scants of timber of Khair tree from the field of the accused. The scants were recovered vide recovery memo Ext.PW-3/C. The recovery was pursuant to the statement made by the accused Ext.PW-3/B under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. With the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial and the accused was charged for an offence under Section 379 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was also recorded. Appreciating the material on record, the Court below came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt had not been proved by the prosecution and therefore, the accused was not guilty of having committed the charged offence. The Court found the statements of the prosecution witnesses to be contradictory with regard to the recovery of the stolen property and as such acquitted the accused. The raiding party constituted PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8. Shri Kuldeep Chand (PW-3) and Shri Bachnoo (PW-4) 3 were the independent witnesses to the recovery of the stolen property. Both of them have been declared hostile and inspite of extensive cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, there is nothing incriminating in their statements with regard to the recovery of the stolen property. Shri Bahadur Singh (PW-6) is the patwari. H.C. Ranjeet Singh (PW-7) and ASI Bhoop Ram (PW-8) are police officials. To ascertain as to whether the prosecution witnesses have been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the statements of the remaining spot witnesses; PW-1, PW-2, PW-7 & PW-8 need to be examined. Careful scrutiny of the statements of these witnesses would show that there are major contradictions about the exact number of scants recovered by the Investigating Officer. As per the version of PW-1, only seven scants were recovered but, however, as per the version of PW-2, 13 scants were recovered and PW-7 refers to recovery of six scants only. Further, PW-7 could not specify as to whether the scants were recovered from the field of PW-1 and as per the versions of PW-1 & PW-7, the recovery effected was not pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused. From the material on record, there is nothing which suggests that the recovery was effected from the field belonging to the accused. It has not been proved on record that the timber in question belonged to the Government or that the same was removed from the Government forest. Thus, in my view, the essential ingredients so as to constitute an offence 4 under Section 379 IPC cannot be said to have been proved in the present case. PW-1 & PW-2 have admitted that the paper work was done after the recovery had been effected. If this was the position, then obviously Ext.PW-3/B cannot be the confessional statement on the basis of which the alleged recovery is stated to have been effected by the police. PW-3, who is the witness to the disclosure statement has also stated that the police got his signatures appended on Ext.PW-3/B & Ext.PW-3/D in the police station. Therefore, the recovery of the timber itself is doubtful. Versions of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, cannot be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In fact their versions render the entire prosecution story to be doubtful. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. The Court below has appreciated the material in its entirety and there is no perversity in the same. For all the aforesaid reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the findings and conclusions of the Court below and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds stand discharged. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. January 7, 2008. (rana)