IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 321 of 2004. Decided on: May 30, 2011. _____________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Roop Singh @ Rajinder Singh and others. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. SURINDER SINGH,J (oral) : Respondents were acquitted by the learned trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 32, 33 of the Indian Forest Act, Rule 20 of the H.P. Timber Transit Rules framed under the Forest Act and also under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, the State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by it in Criminal Case No.148-I/2001 (97), on 4.3.2004, thus, preferred the present appeal. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 2. Prosecution story as alleged goes like this. On 24th April, 1996, PW7 Forest Guard Khem Singh informed PW1 Hem Singh, the then Block Officer about the illicit felling of some ‘Kail’ and ‘Deodar’ trees from ‘Nehri’ protected forest. Vide letter Ext.PW1/A, he informed the Divisional Forest Officer concerned and on his direction the FIR was lodged. (ii) Police visited the spot. On 25.4.1996, police made search of the accused Tarapatti in the presence of Khem Singh, Jai Singh and one Up-Pradhan and got recovered the converted timber which was measured and taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/C. After affixing the seizure hammer, the said accused could not produce any permit. The timber aforesaid was given on supurdari to PW1. (iii) On 30.4.1996, police recovered 5 logs of the trees, which were found abandoned in the jungle. It was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/D. The seizure hammer was also affixed thereon in the presence of Ranjit Singh and Jai Singh. This timber was also given on supurdari. - 3 - (iv) Thereafter, police party alongwith forest officials went towards the ‘Nehri’ forest and came across 5 logs of Deodar trees, lying besides the road. These were also taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/E after affixing seizure hammer thereon. These were also given on supurdari to PW1 Hem Singh, in the presence of Ranjit Singh and Jai Singh witnesses aforesaid. (v) On 30.4.1996, 8 logs were recovered from a Nalla near the field of accused Rattan Lal, seizure hammer was affixed and were taken into possession, vide memo Ext.PW1/F and given on supurdari. (vi) On 1.5.1996, search of the shop of accused Roop Singh @ Rajinder Singh was conducted and the police recovered 87 converted timber of Deodar trees and some logs which did not contain the TD hammer as the said accused failed to produce the permit. These were also taken into possession and given on supurdari to the said witness vide memo Ext.PW1/G. - 4 - (vii) 136 logs were recovered from near the cowshed of Megh Singh accused and 52 logs from the house of another Megh Singh. Police also recovered 146 logs of timber from Sher Singh accused, which were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/K. (viii) According to PW7 Khem Singh, Forest Guard, while on the patrolling duty in the Beet, he noticed the illicit felling of trees, thus, he chalked out the damage report Exts.P1 to P10 w.e.f. 12.4.1996 to 20.4.1996 against the accused persons and when the timber was seized, he was accompanying police at the time of recovery and supurdari. (ix) Police also prepared site plans and the memo on the pointing out of accused persons of the places from where the alleged timber was felled by them. 3. After completing the investigation, challan has presented against the accused persons in the Court for their trial. They were accordingly charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. - 5 - 4. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the illicit felling of trees as well as having signed the damage reports and the confessional statements, if any before the Forest Guard. Respondents did not lead any evidence in defence and at the end of trial, they were acquitted on the ground of hostility of the independent witnesses and the official witnesses having failed to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime. Learned trial Court also noticed the material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 5. Shri J.S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General vehemently argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective. If it is meticulously examined, there are grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction. 6. On the other hand, Shri G.R. Palsara, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. - 6 - 7. After giving my due consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and having gone through the evidence on record, I endorse the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as having been borne out from the evidence on record. 8. On the scrutiny of the evidence, it is evident that PW7 Khem Singh that fearing a departmental inquiry with respect to the illicit felling of trees and having failed in his duty to detect the crime, it appears that on account of this, he haphazardly chalked out the damage reports against some of the accused persons, few of which are allegedly signed in presence of PW9 Padam Dev, Forest Chowkidar and PW6 Jai Singh, but they did not support the prosecution case. 9. Further, PW6 Jai Singh denied about the search and seizure of the house of accused persons as deposed by PW1. Other witnesses Ranjit Singh and Uttam Singh to the alleged recovery memos were not examined by the prosecution. 10. According to PW7 Forest Guard Khem Singh, accused Megh Singh and other person named in the damage reports had admitted their guilt. He did not - 7 - make the mention of other persons who were involved in the alleged offence, but according to him, he chalked out the reports against some of the unknown persons and some known persons. He stated that he recorded the confessional statements of accused Megh Singh son of Shri Tulsi Ram Ext.P11, another accused Megh Singh s/o Shri Saran Ext.P12, accused Rattan Ext.P13, accused Nand Lal Ext.P14 and accused Gebe Ram Ext.P15. Thereafter he reported the matter to the superior Officer and informed the police and made recoveries. Pertinently in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not enquire about felling of the trees from other persons except accused Gebe Ram and Rattan Lal. He also stated that he chalked out damage reports with effect from 12.4.1996 to 20.4.1996, but surprisingly when this fact came to his notice on 12.4.1996, he did not report the matter either to the police or the Officer superior to him. Even in the damage reports, there is no witness nor its is signed by the accused persons nor any recovery has been effected from them. He further admitted that as per the damage reports Exts.P2, P3, P5 and P6, he did not seize any - 8 - scants. He also admitted that it takes about 5-7 days for felling of trees and converting it into timber. The witnesses cited in the damage reports Exts.P2,P3,P5 and P6 namely PW9 Padam Dev and PW10 Devi Singh have not supported the version of PW7 Khem Singh at all. According to them, they were working in the Forest Department and were to support the version of PW7 aforesaid, therefore, their signatures on the damage reports could be the result of under duress. 11. The above position apart, PW9 Padam Dev, Forest Chowkidar has denied the fact of patrolling of the Forest Guard Khem Singh on the dates when the damage reports were chalked out. He specifically stated that his signatures were procured by him forcibly in his quarter. Another witness PW10 Devi Singh was worker in the Forest Department. He denied his presence at the time of alleged recovery from the house of Tarapatti. According to him, his signatures were taken at the residence of Block Officer on the seizure memos. 12. The seizure memos Exts.PW8/A to Ext.PW8/D bears the signatures of PW8 Forest Guard Kanhaiya - 9 - Lal. He admitted that police did not take statement of any of the accused persons in his presence. Another witness cited in the recovery memos is Ranjit Singh, as already stated above, has not been examined. 13. PW2 Kirpal Singh, PW3 Daulat Ram, PW4 Gokal Chand, PW5 Devi Rup, PW6 Jai Singh and PW13 Hem Singh were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. According to them, their signatures were obtained by the police and the forest officials in the Rest House and no recovery was effected in their presence from the house of accused. They also denied about the alleged felling of trees and also denied having produced any of the tools by the accused persons. 14. In view of the above, the statements of the official witnesses stand contradicted by the independent witnesses. Even the statements of the official witnesses are contradictory to each other raising a doubt on the probity of the prosecution case. The damage reports so chalked out by PW7 Forest Guard was also stated to have been so done not in the forest during patrolling, but in the residence - 10 - of Block Officer, may be with a view to prepare a probable defence for the proposed action against him for the dereliction of his duties. 15. Thus, for the above reasons, the acquittal of the respondents passed by the learned trial court cannot be interfered with, as such the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 16. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by him during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), May 30, 2011. Judge. (Pds)