HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No.: 698 of 2001 Decided on: 23.10.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Sunder ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Ms.Yogita Datta, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chopal, dated 6.7.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put up against him under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 27.6.2000, PW-1 Durga Dutt Forest Guard was on patrolling in the area alongwith PW-2 Devi Ram and PW-3 Birbal and he found that 17 longs of deodar were lying at the spot and they saw the respondent running from the spot. Accordingly, it was presumed that these logs have been cut by the respondent. A damage report was prepared. The Forest Guard PW-1 also prepared a confessional statement of the respondent who refused to sign the same and thereafter the complaint was filed. The challan was filed as against the respondent who was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal. _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. It is clear from a perusal of the statements of PW-1 Durga Dutt and two other witnesses accompanying him that the accused was not found cutting the tree or converting it into logs which logs were already lying there at the spot. It is also in evidence of PW-5 Dula Ram, B.O., that it was apparent from the stump of the tree that the tree appeared to have been cut 8/9 months ago. It is surprising that the Forest Guard or the other senior forest officials did not make any inquiry from the adjoining villagers as to when the tree was cut, who may have cut the same, but simply they found 17 logs lying at the spot and saw the respondent running from the spot and they implicated the respondent as an accused. PW-1 Durga Dutt has stated that the accused was trying to carry the logs while PW-2 Devi Ram has specifically stated that the accused was not doing anything but was only running from the spot. PW-3 Birbal has not stated anything if the accused was carrying the logs or attempted to carry the same. It is also in evidence of these witnesses that these logs cannot be carried by one person. The statements of these three witnesses only prove that the logs were found cut and they were lying at the spot and there is nothing that the accused was responsible for the cutting of the tree or converting it into logs. The statement of these witnesses does not inspire confidence that the accused was found running at the spot and, therefore, he had committed this offence. The damage report was prepared at the spot and PW-1 Durga Dutt also prepared the confessional statement of the accused Ext.PW-1/B, but the accused refused to sign the same. No investigation was conducted as to who has committed the offence and, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly concluded that the - 3 - prosecution could not establish that the tree was cut and converted into logs by the accused. Therefore, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P., which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. October 23, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.