IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.58 of 2003 Reserved on : 23.8.2010 Date of decision:27.9.2010 State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Bhagat Ram and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes For the appellant: Mr. J.S.Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Satyan Vaidya, counsel for respondent No.1. V.K.Ahuja, J. This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Special Judge(Forests) Shimla dated 27.7.2002, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge under Sections 379/420/218/120-B IPC. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case, as per the prosecution are that respondent No.1 had illicitly felled and committed theft of a Kail tree from Compartment No.13 Chhajpur Forest in the month of August, 1993. According to the prosecution case, respondent No.2 remained posted as Block Officer, Chhajpur Forest during the years 1992-93 and during these years, respondent No.3 remained Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 posted as Forest Guard, Forest Beat Chhajpur. Both the respondents No.2 and 3 have died and the appeal as against them stands abated accordingly. Therefore, this Court has to consider the evidence as against respondent No.1 only to consider as to whether the charge as against him stands substantiated from the prosecution evidence or not. 3. The prosecution has further alleged that on 10.10.1993 PW- 20 Gobind Singh then Deputy Superintendent of Police Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla alongwith PW-1 Bhau Ram the then Range Officer, PW-3 Yoginder Singh PW-15 Jagat Ram the then Forest Guards and others conducted the checking of Chhajpur Forest regarding illicit felling. During the said checking a stump of Kail having T.D.Khudan mark was found in Compartment No.13 Chhajpur Forest. The hammer mark was not visible. 39 scants of timber were found lying scattered at some distance in the said forest. 4. It is further the prosecution case that during inquiry that it was disclosed that the tree of the said stump had been cut and felled by Kashmir Singh Chirani at the instance of respondent No.1 and the timber was extracted thereof. According to the timber distribution record, no tree had been allotted or sanctioned under the Timber Distribution Scheme in favour of respondent No.1 in Compartment No.13 Chhajpur Forest. 5. An FIR was accordingly registered and the case was investigated. During investigation, 39 scants of the said timber were taken in possession and were given on Sapurdari to PW-1 Bhau Ram, the then Range Officer. The stump in question was 3 measured. On a perusal of the Timber Distribution Register and other connected record, it was found that one Kail tree of second class in Compartment No.18 of Chhajpur Forest had been granted and sanctioned in favour of Range Officer Padam Singh and the same was marked for felling in his favour. It was further revealed that no tree of Kail or of the said stump had been allotted or sanctioned under the Timber Distribution Scheme in favour of respondent No.1 and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched between them, timber distribution khudan mark was put on the stump of the tree in question. The tree was illegally felled and removed by respondent No.1 through Kashmir Singh in connivance with respondents No.2 and 3 and all the respondents accordingly caused wrongful loss to the State to the tune of Rs,.9798/-. On completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the Court and the case was assigned to the learned Special Judge (Forests) who took cognizance and framed the charge as against respondent No.1 and others. The charge as framed against respondent No.1 was under Sections 120-B, 379 and 420 IPC and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Similarly, respondents No.2 and 3 were also charged but the appeal stands abated as against them. 6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted all the respondents of the charges as framed against them. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 4 8. The submissions made by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State were that there was sufficient evidence as against respondent No.1 and as such, the findings to the contrary holding the respondent No.1 not guilty of the charge are liable to be reversed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case as against respondent No.1 since there was no sufficient evidence as against him and accordingly he had rightly been acquitted by the learned trial Court. 9. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that no person had seen respondent No.1 felling the tree. It is the case of the prosecution that it was PW-18 Mast Ram who had disclosed to the police party and the accompanying forest officials that the tree of the said stump was cut and felled by PW-12 Kashmir Singh but at the instance of respondent No.1. The said Mast Ram was examined as PW-18 who has stated that he does not know at whose instance the said tree was felled by Kashmir Singh. He further stated that Kashmir Singh had stated that the tree had been felled by him at the instance of respondent No.1. He further stated that he does not know whether the timber of the said tree was taken in possession or not. He did not see any timber lying near the stump. He admitted in cross examination that no talks had been held in between respondent No.1 and Kashmir Singh Chirani regarding the cutting of the tree of the said stump in his presence. Therefore, on the basis of his statement, it cannot be assumed that the tree was cut by Kashmir Singh at the instance of respondent No.1 and he was not a witness to the cutting of the 5 tree and never stated that respondent No.1 was present at the spot and had asked Kashmir Singh to cut the tree in question. 10. The said Chirani Kashmir Singh has been examined as PW- 12 and rather he should have been arrayed as an accused since the allegations were that he had cut the tree in question but for the reasons best known to the investigating team, they associated him as a witness. He stated that he does not know Bhagat Ram accused nor he felled any tree for him, nor respondent No.1 ever met him. Therefore, this statement was sufficient to hold that there was nothing on record to show that this tree was cut at the instance of respondent No.1. 11. PW-18 Mast Ram had stated that he was present along with forest officials Bhau Ram and Yoginder Singh when he was called to the police station. He thereafter stated that the said tree was shown by him, which had been felled by Kashmir Singh who used to reside with him but he never stated that in the presence of the above named witnesses, the said Kashmir Singh had stated that this was cut by him at the instance of respondent No.1. Therefore, the statements of PW-3 Yoginder Singh, PW-14 Diwaker and PW- 16 Sohan Singh in whose presence PW-18 Mast Ram had allegedly disclosed the above said facts cannot be said to have been substantiated by PW-18 Mast Ram who never stated that in their presence the disclosure was made by Kashmir Singh. 12. A perusal of the statement of PW-3 Yoginder Singh also shows that he had stated that Mast Ram had not disclosed anything to anyone in his presence. PW-14 Diwaker has also stated that nobody had disclosed on spot as to who had felled the 6 tree of the said stump. PW-16 Sohan Singh no where stated that anything was disclosed in his presence by Kashmir Singh. He denied having gone with the police for checking of compartment No.13 in regard to illicit felling. 13. The evidence in question had been fully discussed by the learned trial Court in detail in paras 9 to 11 of the judgment and on the basis of this discussion, the learned trial Court had rightly concluded that the guilt of respondent No.1 was not proved by the prosecution. Further, during the course of arguments nothing was pointed out by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant to show that any material evidence was not considered by the learned trial Court or wrong conclusions were drawn in regard to the evidence and, as such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed as against respondent No.1 also having abated against the other respondents. The bail bonds furnished by respondent No.1 stands discharged. September 27,2010 (V.K.Ahuja), J. (SDS)