IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.171 of 2004. Date of Decision: 27th August, 2010. ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Jagdish Ram ..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) : The respondent alongwith his co-accused Devi Ram, Ranjit Singh, Mangat Ram and Bhag Singh were tried for the offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Roop Lal had absconded from the scene of the alleged crime and was not traceable, as such he was declared ‘Proclaimed Offender’. After the complete trial, respondent Jagdish Ram was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, whereas the co-accused were acquitted. 2. Respondent Jagdish Ram assailed his conviction and sentence before the Court of Sessions. Vide judgment dated 21st January, 2004 he was also acquitted. Against his acquittal the instant appeal has been filed by the State on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in its right perspective and the acquittal in this case was in-disregard to the material evidence on record. 3. Heard and gone through the record. 4. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. In the intervening night of 11th/12th May, 1995, Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Sadar Bilaspur was on patrol duty alongwith his staff in the official mini bus on Brahampukhar-Deoth road, within his jurisdiction. When they were proceeding from Brahampukhar intersection towards Deoth, they noticed truck No.HP-24-2977 coming from Deoth side. The police party signaled to stop it, but its driver did not stop and sped away. It was chased and intercepted near intersection of Brahampukhar. When the - 3 - truck was stopped, its occupants including the driver escaped from the scene taking the benefit of darkness. Respondent was cleaner of the truck, he was apprehended by the police on the spot. He disclosed his identity and informed the police about the names of his driver and the occupants thereof, who managed to escape. 5. Police checked the truck. It was found carrying 185 logs of dressed/heart Khair-wood which was around 50 quintals on weight. Respondent Jagdish Ram could not produce the transit permit or any permission. Inspector/SHO PW-9 Madan Lal sent a Ruka for the registration of the case, on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW- 9/B was registered. 6. During investigation of the case it was found that there was illicit felling of 39 Khair trees on the Government land and six Khair trees were found to have been felled from the private land. The timber and truck both were seized and its seizure was reported to the Authorized Officer (Divisional Forest Officer), Bilaspur for its disposal, as per provisions of Section 52-A and B of the Indian Forest Act. - 4 - 7. After completion of the investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for trial. Roop Lal, driver of the truck was untraceable, as aforesaid he was declared ‘Proclaimed Offender’. The respondent and his co- accused were tried. Only respondent was convicted and sentenced, whereas the others were acquitted. Respondent was also exonerated in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. 8. It is evident from the record that there had rampant illicit felling of Khair trees in Brahampukhar Block and Forest Division, Bilaspur. On coming to know about the illicit felling, the then Forest Guard Krishan Lal is stated to have chalked out nine damage reports, of the persons who had illicitly felled Khair trees, in the presence of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Deoth. The cut and dressed Khair-wood were seized and seizure hammer of the Forest Department was affixed. 9. During the proceedings PW-6 D.F.O, Dr. Suresh Kumar, was confronted with different story that the aforesaid truck was hired by the forest officials to transport the seized Khair-wood from the spot of the seizure to take it to Brahampukhar Forest Block office situated ahead to the place where the truck was apprehended by the - 5 - police on Bilaspur road. The Authorized Officer did not find any fault or the connivance of the crews of the truck and that of its owner and recommended disciplinary action against the forest official concerned and released the truck. 10. PW-9 Madan Lal, Dy.S.P. also stated during trial that Khair-wood logs were having the hammer-mark though it was not clearly legible. To this effect there is also a reference in the order of Authorized Officer Ext.PW-6/A, which corroborates this fact that logs were having seizure hammer-mark, though not clearly visible on some of the logs. 11. Paras 7 to 9 of the order Ext.PW-6/A passed by PW-6 aforesaid makes the things clear and the defence probable that the truck was hired by the forest officials. The said paras are usefully reproduced as under: “7. Thereafter he deputed Shri Ranjeet Singh, Daily Wager and Lochhu Ram, Daily Wager to hire a truck to carry these logs from Deoth to Brahampukhar. The truck No.HP-24-2977 was hired as it was coming from Namhol side and negotiated with Rup Lal truck driver to carry seized khair logs from Deoth to Brahampukhar. Sh. Ranjeet Singh and Lochhu Ram also accompanied with the truck and went to Bhajun (Deoth). On 12.5.95 at 3.00 AM one of the daily wagers came to Block Officer’s residence and informed that Police had taken - 6 - away the truck alongwith khair logs. Then he alongwith daily wager Sh. Ranjeet Singh came to Lakhanpur in order to inform the Range officer Sadar. But the Range Officer could not be traced. On 13.5.95 he met Range Officer and showed him the damage reports so issued against the offenders and thereafter he went to realize the compensation from offenders. Range Officer has also checked the illicit felling and found it correct. During cross-examination it is was revealed by the Deputy Ranger that the seizure of the khair wood was conducted in presence of Prem lal, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat and hammer mark was also affixed in his presence. 8. The statements of Sh. Jai Singh and Krishan Lal, Forest Guards of Brahampukhar and Deoth beat respectively were also recorded. They admitted that there was illicit felling in Govt. forests and Pvt. Lands. The same was reported to Block Officer Brahampukhar and thereafter the Block Officer seized and damage reports were issued and thereafter the truck No.HP-24- 2977 was engaged to carry the same to Brahampukhar. 9. In the statements of Sh. Bhag Singh, Sh. Mangat Ram and Sh. Devi Ram stated that illicit felling of Khair trees were there in the Bhajun forest (Deoth) and same was seized by Block Officer Brahampukhar on dated 11.5.95. They were ignorant that how their names have been included in the FIR as they never accompanied the truck No.HP-24-2977 on 12.5.95”. 12. On the basis of above, the Authorized Officer came to the conclusion that the logs of Khair-wood were - 7 - seized during the day time on 11th May, 1995 by the forest officials. Rather coming back to Brahampukhar after seizure, the forest officials should have started the process to store or to carry the Khair logs to safer place and even no responsible officer stayed on the spot. The Forest Guard accompanying the Deputy Ranger also came back to his headquarter. He also noticed that it was sorry state of affairs that daily-wagers Ranjeet Singh accused and Lochhu Ram were deployed instead of Forest Guard to carry the logs, who ran away from the spot after seeing the police. The Authorized Officer had shown his concern regarding the lapse committed by the forest officials and observed that the whole lapse is required to be investigated and when examined in the Court he clearly stated that the concerned officials were ordered to be charge-sheeted. 13. Against the aforesaid evidence on record, it appears that the truck in question was hired by the forest officials to carry the seized Khair-wood and there was no option to the respondent who was a cleaner to accompany the truck in question alongwith the force of the Forest Department. - 8 - 14. Apparently, the aforesaid facts were not taken into consideration by the learned trial Court, which resulted into conviction of the respondent, but the learned Sessions Judge, in my opinion, rightly took into account the facts aforesaid emerging from the evidence on record and came to conclusion that there was no art and part of the respondent in the commission of the alleged crime. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge for the acquittal of the respondents are borne out from the evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse. As such the appeal lacks merit, hence dismissed. 15. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case. 16. Send down the record. August 27, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)