IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No. 390 of 2001 Date of decision : April 28, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Shyam Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby respondent Shyam Singh, who was tried for offence, punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, has been acquitted. 2. Case was filed against the respondent by Range Officer of the Forest Department alleging that on 23.9.1999, when Forest Guard PW-1 Tara Dutt Sharma accompanied by PW-2 Lal Singh, also an employee of the Forest Department, went to the Government forest, he noticed respondent sawing a felled deodar tree into logs. Respondent, on seeing the Forest Guard and PW-2 Lal Singh allegedly took to heels, leaving the instruments of cutting and sawing on the spot. Those instruments were seized and given on spurdari Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… to PW-4 Kewal Ram. Timber, consisting of five logs, was given on spurdari to PW-3 Het Ram. 3. Trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution case, holding that the statements of the witnesses are contradictory to each other, and acquitted the respondent. 4. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. 5. PW-1 Tara Dutt Sharma says that he went to the forest accompanied by PW-2 Lal Singh and saw the respondent converting the felled tree into logs. PW-2 Lal Singh says that PW-3 Het Ram and PW-4 Kewal Ram were also with them, when they went to the forest, but neither PW-3 Het Ram nor PW-4 Kewal Ram say that they went with the Forest Guard or PW-2 Lal Singh to the forest and saw the respondent converting deodar tree into logs. 6. Statement of Tara Dutt Sharma, Forest Guard, who appeared as PW-1, is inherently untrue. He says that on seeing him and PW-2 Lal Singh, the respondent ran away from the spot, leaving the instruments on the spot and that inspite of having called him to stop and return to the spot he did not come. At the same time, he says that the respondent made a confessional statement but refused to sign the same. Now, if the respondent had run away from the spot and did not return despite being called by PW-1 Tara Dutt Sharma, how could he have made the confessional statement on that very day and also on the spot, as testified by PW-1 Tara Dutt Sharma. 7. PW-2 Lal Singh is not only an employee of the forest department but is also shown to be on inimical terms with the …3… respondent. The witness even though denied that he had made a false accusation of theft against the respondent, yet he admitted that he was not on speaking terms with the respondent. He admitted that the respondent and he hail from the same village. 8. In view of the abovestated position, I see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. April 28, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J