______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 2001. Reserved on : 02.03.2009. Date of Decision: 06.03.2009. State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Kewal Ram ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? For the Appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr.G.S.Rathore, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge The State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 30.12.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chopal, District Shimla in case No. 67-1 of 2000 acquitting the respondent under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-1 Sant Ram, Forest Guard was patrolling from Malat Beat to Sairty Dehat, he found that respondent had illicitly cut three Deodar trees without permission. PW-1 Sant Ram issued damage report Ex. PW-1/A, he also prepared iqbalnama Ex.PW-1/B which respondent refused to sign. The illicit timber was seized on the spot and hammer mark No. 23-CPL was put on the illicit timber. The seized timber was handed over to PW-3 Devia Ram vide Sapurdarinama Ex. PW-1/C. The investigation was given to PW-4 Dula - 2 - Ram, who on completion of investigation presented challan against respondent under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. Notice of accusation was put to respondent under Section 33 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined four witnesses and placed on record some documents. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the prosecution case. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chopal acquitted the respondent on 30.12.2000, hence this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. G.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chopal has not properly appreciated the material on record and has erred in acquitting the respondent who was found to have cut three Deodar trees illegally. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the prosecution has examined only interested official witnesses, no reason has been given why independent witnesses from the area were not examined. There is no evidence on record that the respondent had cut the trees. The learned Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record and no fault can be found in the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Court. 4. PW-1 Sant Ram has stated that he was on patrol duty in Sairty Dehat on 13.8.1999, he found that Kewal Ram had cut three trees illegally and converted them into 24 Karis. The respondent was ready to carry the timber when he reached the spot. The respondent on seeing him fled away from the spot. The 24 Karis were seized on the spot and hammer No.23-CPL was put on them and handed over to PW-3 Devia Ram in presence of PW-2 Birbal. He prepared damage report Ex.PW-1/A in presence of witnesses and iqbalnama Ex.PW-1/B but respondent - 3 - refused to sign iqbalnama and, therefore, he got the signature of PW-2 Birbal on iqbalnama Ex.PW-1/B. The seized timber was handed over vide sapurdarinama Ex.PW-1/C which is signed by PW-3 Devia Ram. The papers were sent to Range Office for further action. The investigation was conducted by Block Officer who recorded his statement Ex.PW-1/D. In cross-examination, he has stated that respondent had not cut the trees in his presence. Sairty Village is adjacent to the place where the trees were cut. He did not associate any person from Sairty village. 5. PW-2 Birbal has also stated that he had not seen the respondent while cutting the trees. The damage report prepared against respondent because he was standing near the timber. The Forest Guard enquired from Sant Ram of Sairty village. PW-3 Devia has also stated that trees were not cut in his presence. PW-4 Dula Ram has stated that damage report Ex.PW-1/A was given to him for investigation and he went to Malat on 4.7.2000 for investigation. The respondent confessed but refused to pay the damages. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had written 24 pieces in the statements of Sant Ram, Birbal and Devia after cutting. He has further stated that he did not make inquiry from any person of the village. 6. The prosecution has examined only official witnesses. It is not the case of the prosecution that the place from where three trees were allegedly cut by the respondent is situated in an isolated place away from the habitation. On the contrary, PW-2 Birbal has stated that Forest Guard inquired from Sant Ram, but what Sant Ram of Sairty village had revealed during inquiry that has not been disclosed by any witness. PW-1 to PW-3 in one voice have stated that they had not seen the respondent cutting the trees. PW-2 Birbal has stated that damage report was prepared against the respondent because he was found standing near the timber. PW-1 has stated that when they reached the spot, the respondent was in the - 4 - process of lifting the timber. In what manner, the respondent was in the process of lifting the timber that has not been explained. Simply because the respondent was found standing near the timber when PW-1 to PW-3 visited the spot that does not mean the respondent had cut the trees. The occurrence is dated 13.8.1999 but PW-4 commenced investigation on 4.7.2000. There is no legal evidence on record to connect the respondent with the commission of the offence. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chopal has rightly appreciated the material on record. 7. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the respondent, resultantly, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. March 6, 2009. (GR)