IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A.No.570/2002 Decided on:4.6.2009. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. …..Appellant. Versus Bal Ram and others. …Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the appellant: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.N.D.Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J(Oral): Heard and gone through the record. The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, allegedly transporting 40 bags of charcoal by respondents Bal Ram and Ralesh in tractor No.HP-10-0944 which was allegedly purchased by Ralesh Kumar from respondent Banka Ram. The complaint was filed by forest department through Range Officer before the learned trial Court alleging that on 17.12.1999 an information was received by the forest officials that charcoal was being transported illegally in the tractor aforesaid which was likely to pass through village Badiyara. On receipt of this Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?Yes . 2 information, the forest officials headed by PW9 Sh.Inder Kumar, Range Officer constituted a raiding party and went to Badiyara Bridge. From there they came to know that a tractor had passed through the check post, Samoli and had gone towards the Sainji road. The forest officials intercepted the aforesaid tractor at Sainji road and found Bal Ram on its steering wheel and Ralesh Kumar was also sitting besides him along with 2-3 other persons. The said tractor was carrying 40 bags of charcoal. PW9 aforesaid asked for the permit to which they could not produce as such, they took into possession the charcoal along with tractor vide seizure memo Ext.PW2/B. The aforesaid tractor was given on Sapurdari to Laxmi Chand vide memo Ext.PW9/A. The joint statements Ext.PW3/C of Jagjit Singh and Padam Chand were recorded by the Range Officer and the joint statements of Dharam Singh, Hem Chand and Villiam Faindal (Ext.PW2/C) were also recorded along with the statements of other persons viz. Laiq Ram and Mina Ram. Thereafter the complaint was presented against the respondents in the trial Court under the aforesaid sections. Notice of accusation was put to the respondents. They denied the allegations and claimed trial. To prove its case, the complainant examined its witnesses and the statements of the respondents were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondents denied the circumstances found attendant upon each of them. They disputed the recovery of the charcoal as alleged and further stated that the allegations against them were false. The respondents did not produce any evidence in defence. 3 After appreciating the evidence on record, the respondents were acquitted for the offences aforesaid on the grounds that the evidence of the prosecution is contradictory and is not inspiring confidence. Further the learned trial Court also took the note of the fact that some of the important witnesses had turned hostile and their version was coinciding with the defence raised by the respondents. Shri Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General argued with vehemence that the statement of the prosecution witnesses is worth inspiring confidence and if properly scanned, would impel this court to convert the acquittal into conviction. Shri N.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, in response to the above arguments, supported the finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court. I have meticulously examined the rival contentions of the parties in the light of the evidence on record. PW9 Sh. Inder Kumar, Range Officer to substantiate the prosecution case stated that on getting the secret information about the transportation of the charcoal illegally, he associated the Forest Beat Guard, Diswani and Block Officer along with one Villiam Faindal, employee of the forest department and visited Badiyara bridge. There they came to know that a tractor loaded with 40 bags of charcoal was driven of via Sainji road to Rohru. Thereafter they went towards Sainji road and found tractor No.HP-10-0944 loaded with charcoal, which was being driven by respondent-Bal Ram and also found Ralesh Kumar sitting with him. Further, according to him, respondent-Ralesh told him that he had purchased these 40 bags from respondent-Banka Ram. The entire property was taken into 4 possession vide memo Ext.PW2/B along with tractor as aforesaid. The charcoal was given on Sapurdari to Kuldip Singh at Rohru. According to him the documentations were completed on the spot. In the cross-examination he stated that the charcoal was not unloaded by them from the tractor nor it was sealed. Further, according to him, no independent witness was associated during the recovery. The seizure memo is alleged to have been witnessed by PW8 William Faindal. Said Mr. Faindal in his cross-examination has materially contradicted him and stated that no documents were prepared on the spot. He further stated that the seizure memo was prepared by Dharam Singh but contradicted this fact in the cross-examination and stated that the seizure memo Ext.PW2/A and Sapurdari nama Ext.PW2/B were written by the Range Officer at Rohru and his signatures were obtained in the forest office at Chirgaon and further shattered the case as propounded by the Range Officer (PW9) that even Ralesh Kumar and Dharam Singh both had also signed the aforesaid documents along with him in the forest office at Chirgaon. Not only this, PW4 Sh.Laiq Ram, Supervisor of the Public Works Department, who was deputed to collect the toll tax at Badiyara, categorically stated that when the tractor had passed through the toll tax barrier it was not carrying anything in it. Although he stated that the said tractor was being driven by respondent-Bal Ram but denied the presence of Ralesh Kumar when it passed through the toll tax barrier. PW10 Sh. Padam Chand stated that he saw the tractor carrying 12 bags of charcoal but he did not specify whether it was the same tractor which was being driven by respondent-Bal Ram and in cross-examination he stated that the said charcoal was extracted 5 from the private land but he did not disclose as to who had done so. He also stated that the vehicle which he saw transporting the charcoal were carrying 5-6 persons. Further according to him, Badiyara is the check post where all the vehicles which crosses the said check post are registered. He also admitted that near the Samoli bridge, there is also a forest check post. He did not know whether any seizure memo qua 12 bags of charcoal was ever prepared by the forest officials. If, according to him, the tractor was carrying 12 bags of charcoal then how it came to be 40 bags in the tractor in question. PW11 Jagjit Singh did not support the case of the prosecution. He categorically stated that he did not know as to whom the charcoal belonged. No attempt was made either to make the other persons present in the tractor either as accused or as the witness to support the version of the forest officials. PW7 Mina Ram, a mule driver, has also stated that he did not carry any charcoal on his mules to the house of respondent- Banka Ram. PW6 Parmeshwera Nand, Deputy Range Officer has stated that he was deputed by the Range Officer along with Dharam Singh, Forest Guard to collect 12 bags of charcoal near the ‘Dogri’ of Banka Ram which were brought by them and were handed over to Kuldip Singh, Forest Guard. In his cross-examination he has expressed his ignorance and stated that these 12 bags of charcoal were different from the charcoal which the tractor in question was carrying. But, however stated that these 12 bags were also handed over to Kuldip Singh at Rohru and he did not know whether any sapurdari-nama was prepared to this effect. Significantly, he stated 6 that the present case also included the 12 bags of charcoal which he had brought to Rohru in another tractor. PW4 Laiq Ram and PW5 Hem Chand both have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. On the re-appraisal of the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution, I find that there is no connecting evidence against respondent-Banka Ram. The recovery witnesses are sharply contradicting each other making the case of the prosecution quite doubtful. Thus, in view of the contradiction with respect to transportation, the recovery of charcoal from the tractor in question cannot be believed. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. As such the appeal is dismissed. (Surinder Singh), Judge. June 4, 2009(R)