IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No. 98 of 2004. Cr. Rev. No.148 of 2004. Date of Decision: 27.9.2010. _______________________________________________ 1. Cr.Revision No. 98 of 2004. Gurnam Singh and others. ….Petitioners. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. 2. Cr.Revision No. 148 of 2004. Rajinder Singh …petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner(s). :Mr.Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. For Respondent. :Mr.P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General With Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioners challenge their conviction under Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, which has been affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur only under Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The learned trial Court, on the evidence before it convicted Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes . 2 the petitioners including one Ram Dev Vishav Karma (since declared proclaimed offender) under Section 379 I.P.C. read with Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced each of the accused to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offences under Section 379 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- for offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. 2. No. appeal was preferred by the proclaimed offender Ram Dev Vishav Karma but only by petitioners herein. The learned Sessions Judge on the evidence on record set aside the conviction under Section 379 I.P.C. but maintained the conviction under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 27.10.1996 at around 1.30 a.m. PW12 S.I.Ghambhir Chand, Police Station, Kotkehloor along with PW5 Tulsi Ram, PW4 LHC.Rattan Lal and Achhru Ram, apprehended the accused who were transporting 35 khair logs without permit in the tractor trolley and were trying to make good their escape under the cover of darkness. These logs were purportedly being transported for sale in Punjab. Rukka Ext.PA was sent to the Police Station and F.I.R. Ext. PY was recorded. After recording the evidence of twelve witnesses, learned trial Court convicted all the accused. The learned appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and concluded that the petitioners were guilty of offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners refers to the evidence of PW5 Tulsi Ram, to urge that the evidence brought on record does not support the case of the prosecution more especially 3 when it is read injunction with the evidence of PW1 Surinder Singh, PW10 Hari Krishan and PW11 Telu Ram who had been declared hostile. 5. Adverting to the submission, it is established law that merely because a witness is declared hostile, it does not by itself exonerate the accused from the criminality of the case. The evidence of a witness who is declared hostile can be used for the purposes of determining as to whether a particular offence has been committed or not as the principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not attracted to criminal proceedings in India. Leaving this factor aside, I do not find anything in the evidence of these witnesses which may exonerate the petitioners from the criminality of their acts. 6. On the question of sentence, what I find is that the learned Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, sentenced the petitioners under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and has acquitted them of the offences under Section 379 I.P.C. 7. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioners is set aside. It is directed that they shall deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- before the learned trial Court within a period of three months from today. On receipt of such money, it shall be paid to the Forest Department as compensation. It is clarified that in the case of non deposit, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive. It is further clarified that this judgment does not at all determine the rights of accused No.5 Ram Dev Vishav Karma, who is a proclaimed offender and who shall undergo the sentence as imposed by the trial Court as and when 4 apprehended. Both the petitions are disposed of. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. September 27, 2010(R)