IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 520 of 2003 Date of decision: 16.6.2010 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Sagar Chand and another. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. M.L.Chauhan, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ani dated 30.4.2002, in a case under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the notice of accusation put up to them. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 25.3.2001, Forest Guard Mohinder Singh lodged a Report Ex.PW-1/A with one Har Dyal, Range Forest Officer, on the basis of which, report was sent to the Police alleging that respondents were found having cut five trees of Deodar on 24.3.2001 from the forest. On this, Mohinder Singh enquired and both the respondents were found preparing logs from the tree and one tree was lying at the spot. When he enquired, respondent Dharam Dass ran away from the spot and Sagar Chand confessed having cut the trees and Iqbalnama Ex.PW-2/B, was prepared by him which was also Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. signed by two witnesses, namely, Prem Lal and Joginder Singh. On the basis of the report made by PW-2 Mohinder Singh, a written complaint was sent to the police and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who charged the respondents for offences under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act and under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC and tried the respondents leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. From a perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is very much clear that no person had seen the respondents cutting the trees at the relevant time. The respondents had not been found at the spot along with the trees when PW-2 Mohinder Singh has stated that he made enquiry and respondent Dharam Dass ran away from the spot, while Sagar Chand confessed and Iqbalnama Ex.PW-2/B was prepared which was duly signed by the witnesses. One of the witnesses PW-3 Prem Lal, has been examined by the prosecution, who has stated that he signed as a witness to the Iqbalnama vide which Sagar Chand respondent had confessed his guilt. 5. The learned trial Court had considered this evidence led by the prosecution and had rightly observed that this confessional statement cannot be read legally in evidence as the confession had been made before a person in authority and this type of evidence cannot be relied upon in the absence of due corroboration. The other witness to the confessional statement has not supported the prosecution story . The prosecution also examined two other witnesses namely, Radha Ram PW-5 and Hukam Ram PW-8 but they also have not supported the prosecution case except the alleged confessional statement made by one of the respondents which does not bind the other respondent. No case is made out in such type of evidence in the absence of corroboration. The conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court holding that the guilt of the respondents was not established beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for interference by this Court. 6. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly, hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds of the respondents shall stand discharged. 16th June, 2010 ( V.K. Ahuja ) (SDS) Judge