IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 703 of 2000 Date of decision: 22.02.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Devi Singh and another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Nemo. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, dated 23.5.2000, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the notice of accusation put up to them for Sections 32 and 33 of Indian Forest Act. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 7.4.1996 Forest Guard Rukman Singh was on patrolling and he found that the respondents had felled one devdar Ist-A Class tree and were lopping its branches. He took into possession the axe, prepared a damage report and after investigation, the complaint was filed as against the respondents before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents as detailed above, leading to their acquittal. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 I have heard Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General and have gone through the record of the case. It has been pointed out by the learned Assistant Advocate General that leave to appeal was granted qua respondent No.1 and no leave to appeal was granted qua respondent No. 2. Respondent No.1 was reported to be of unsound mind and the appeal was adjourned sine-die as per order dated 23.8.2001 and it was ordered that it shall be revived when respondent No.1 is found to be of sound mind and capable of defending himself. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that he has not been able to get any information whether respondent No.1 is alive or of sound mind or not. He informed that the judgment can be passed by the Court and accordingly arguments have been heard. On appraisal of the record of the case, the prosecution case rests upon the testimony of two prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 Rukman Singh and PW-6 Dholi Ram. In the report lodged by PW-1, he had stated that PW-6 had witnessed the felling of tree by the accused and he prevented them and then informed Forest Guard Rukman Singh. PW-1 Rukman Singh has not stated that he was informed by PW-6 or that the tree had already been cut at that time. In his statement PW-1 has stated that the tree had already been cut by the accused persons and they were lopping its branches when he reached the spot. However, in his statement he stated that the tree was cut in his presence, but he stated that he did not prevent the respondents since he came to the spot after felling the tree. This clearly shows that he had not witnessed cutting of the tree by the respondents. He also stated that the respondents had already 3 lopped the branches of the tree when he reached the spot from a distance of ½ K.M. He denied the suggestion that the accused had never confessed. PW-6 Dholi Ram has stated that he did not see anything nor heard anything. He was declared as hostile by the learned A.P.P. and was allowed to be cross-examined. No other witness has stated about the cutting of the tree by the accused persons at that time. Keeping in view the evidence on record, the final findings of the learned trial Court that the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond any reasonable doubt, cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 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. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent No.1, shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), February 22, 2010 Judge (BSS) 4