IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2004. Date of decision: March 23, 2011. State of H.P. ….. Appellant. Vs. Pawan Kumar & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the appellant : Mr. P.M.Negi, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge, (oral) . This appeal has been directed against the judgement, dated 11.6.2004, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2000, acquitting the respondents for offences, punishable under sections 32, 33, 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act, Sections 379, 420, 467, 468 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that respondents had illegally cut, felled and converted khair wood into logs without permission of the Forest Department and removed the same from the forest. The respondents were found transporting khair wood in a van without permit. The respondents conspired and forged two damage reports in the name of other persons to the tune of Rs.12247/- and Rs. 7247/-. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… 3. There was rumour in the area that illicit felling of khair trees from government forest Khal had been taking place. A van was intercepted by the forest guard accompanied by others in which khair wood was loaded, which was taken into possession alongwith the van. It was alleged that van was being driven by respondent No. 1 Pawan Kumar, he alongwith Polu Ram and others were intercepted. The forged damage reports No. 28 and 29 dated 21.2.1996 were prepared in the names of other persons. The composition money was deposited in the government treasury. The damage reports were forged by respondent No. 4 Rai Chand, Forest Guard and respondent No. 3 Daulat Ram, Block Officer. 4. PW 11 Chandu Ram Sharma, Tehsildar during investigation, demarcated the forest from where khair wood was cut in presence of PW 8 Madan Lal, Field Kanungo and PW 9 Chatar Singh, Patwari. The damage reports were taken into possession from PW 12 Ravi Kumar, Forest Guard and PW 15 Anant Ram, Forest Guard. The specimen handwritings of the respondents were taken by PW 21 Fateh Singh before Executive Magistrates PW 19 Ramesh Chand and PW 20 Dev Raj. The case was investigated by PW 22 Kashmiru Ram. The opinion of Finger Prints Expert was obtained. PW 18 Dr. Lalit Mohan, D.F.O., Wild Life gave sanction to prosecute respondent No. 4 Rai Chand. PW 22 R.C. Bargal gave sanction to prosecute respondent No. 3 Daulat Ram. 5. The respondent No. 1 Pawan Kumar was charged for offence, punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act. The respondent No. 2 Polu Ram and respondent No. 5 Bhupinder …3… Singh were charged for offences, punishable under Sections 32, 33, 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act, Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B IPC. Respondent No. 3 Daulat Ram and respondent No. 4 Rai Chand were charged for offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B IPC and section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution has examined 23 witnesses and produced some documents. The statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution case. The respondents were given an opportunity to lead defence evidence after hearing them under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The respondents led no evidence in defence. The learned Special Judge acquitted the respondents, hence appeal by the State. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 8. In order to appreciate the prosecution case, it is necessary to consider the evidence, which has come on record. PW 1 Surjan Singh has stated that it is wrong to say that Rai Singh had demanded consideration from the occupants of the van and had allowed the forest produce khair wood to be transported and exported without transit pass and export permit. He was declared hostile. In the cross- examination conducted by the Prosecutor, he has stated that he did not make the statement Ex. PW 1/A. PW 2 Ranjit Singh has stated that he had not gone to the site of alleged illicit felling nor he had seen the logs of khair wood stacked in the area of Khal. He was …4… declared hostile and cross-examined by the Prosecutor, but nothing could be extracted from his cross-examination favouring the prosecution. 9. PW 3 Nagia Ram is a witness in whose presence glass pieces were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 3/A and one piece of khair wood vide recovery memo Ex. PW 3/B. PW 4 Amar Chand is the brother of accused Polu Ram. He has stated that forest guard had not issued any damage report against him and his brother nor they had signed or thumb marked the damage reports in token of admission of illicit felling. He has not paid any amount of composition for illicit felling vide receipt No. 022 dated 24.12.1996 Ex. PW 4/A. PW 5 Daya Ram has stated that on 21.12.1996, he had not loaded khair wood in a maruti van at the instance of Rai Singh nor he realised a sum of Rs.100/- for loading khair wood. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Prosecutor, he reiterated his stand by sticking to his statement and denied that he loaded khair wood logs in maruti van on 21.12.1996. PW 6 Brahma Nand has stated that forest guard and block officer had not asked for Rs.40,000/- for releasing maruti van PCA 1008. He was declared hostile and cross- examined by the Prosecutor. He denied having made any statement, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 10. PW 7 Rattan Chand has stated that he had not visited the site of illicit felling nor had seen any maruti van loaded with khair wood. He was declared hostile, but in the cross-examination, nothing favourable to the prosecution could be extracted. PW 8 Madan Lal was the Field Kanungo at the relevant time. He has stated …5… that C.R. Sharma, Tehsildar had demarcated DPF Khal in his presence. The illicit felling was noticed and the matter was reported to the authorities. In cross-examination, he has stated that he could not say how many years/ months back the illicit felling had been done. 11. PW 9 Chatar Singh was the Patwari in Patwar Circle, Bhakra at the relevant time. He has stated that on 18.3.1997 Chandu Ram, Tehsildar had demarcated DPF Khal in his presence and in the presence of Madan Lal Kanungo and detected illicit felling of khair trees. He prepared field maps Ex. PW 9/A and Ex. PW 9/B indicating the sites of illicit felling. He has produced jamabandies Ex. PW 9/C and Ex. PW 9/D. The felling had been done in khasra Nos. 32 and 113. PW 10 Kanshi Ram has stated that he had noticed large scale illicit felling of khair trees in DPF Khal. The forest officials were informed of illicit felling. In cross-examination he has stated that he had not seen forest guard Rai Chand and Daulat Ram, Block Officer negotiating the deal with anyone. 12. PW 11 Chandu Ram, Tehsildar carried out the demarcation of khasra Nos. 32 and 113 in DPF Khal. He had put mark “A” to “A” and “B” to “B” under his signatures in field maps Ex. PW 9/A and Ex. PW 9/B. In all, ten khair trees were found to be unauthorisedly and illegally felled. He has stated that report of demarcation has to be prepared in writing. He does not remember whether he had prepared the report in writing of the demarcation or not. …6… 13. PW 12 Ravi Kumar has proved copy Ex. PW 12/A of register. In the register, there is a mention of damage report Nos. 25 to 29 issued by Rai Singh, Forest Guard. The damage reports are Ex. PW 12/B and Ex. PW 12/D and Ex. PW 12/E. In cross- examination, he has stated that amount of damage covered by damage reports had been deposited in the bank by the forest officials. The damage reports were stated to have been compounded by the Block Officer. The Range Officer had also passed order for composition on the same day. He had not brought the original record of Range Officer, wherein the Range Officer had passed the orders of composition. The Range Officer had directed the Block Officer to compound the matter by passing the orders on the damage reports. 14. PW 13 Parkash Chand Sharma, ASI has stated that Kashmiru Ram Inspector had taken into possession maruti van PCS 1008 from Jaspal Singh. PW 14 Pardeep Kumar HC had registered the FIR Ex. PW 14/A on the basis of statement Ex. PW 1/A. PW 16 Gopal Dutt has stated that forest department has formulated the policy for compounding forest offences and has proved copy of letters Ex. PW 16/A-1 to Ex. PW 16/A-16. PW 18 Dr. Lalit Mohan has proved sanction Ex. PW 18/A for prosecuting Rai Chand. There were two reports No. 28 and 29 in the name of Amar Chand and Dhanu Ram in which thumb impressions of Polo Ram were obtained by Rai Chand forest guard in the column of confession. He has stated that such type of cases cannot be compounded by the Range Officer. He has stated that he had written to CCF on 3.3.1999 that sanction to prosecute Rai Chand be refused vide Ex. RXX, but …7… later on higher authorities had passed orders for prosecution of Daulat Ram, Dy. Ranger, therefore, the case of Rai Chand was reviewed. 15. PW 19 Ramesh Chand has stated that specimen signatures/ writings of Rai Chand, Daulat Ram and Bhupiinder Singh were taken by him on 11.3.1998 and 13.2.1998, which are Ex. PW 19/A-1 to Ex. PW 19/A-27. PW 20 Dev Raj has stated that as Naib Tehsildar, Bilaspur, he was vested the powers of Executive Magistrate from 13.10.1996. On 26.2.1997, he had taken specimen thumb impressions of all fingers of the hands of Polo Ram and attested such thumb impressions vide Ex. PW 20/A and Ex. PW 20/B. He had not got Polo Ram identified from any other person. PW 21 Fateh Singh ASI has stated that thumb impressions of Polo Ram Ex. PW 21/A and PW 21/B were taken in his presence on 27.5.1997 by Tehsildar Bilaspur. PW 20 Dev Raj, Naib Tehsildar had taken thumb impressions of Polo Ram on 26.2.1997, which are Ex. PW 20/A and Ex. PW 20/B . He has stated that he did not know Polo Ram personally. 16. PW 22 Kashmiru Ram is the Investigating Officer and has stated that owner had produced the maruti van in the police station. He cannot say from where the owner had produced the maruti van before him. He did not recover any forest produce from the maruti van. PW 23 R.C. Bargal has produced sanction order Ex. PW 23/A for prosecuting Daulat Ram. 17. The respondents in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. Daulat Ram has stated that …8… damage reports of illicit felling were prepared at the instance and in presence of Ravinder Sharda, the then Range Officer, Sri Naina Devi Ji. Similarly Rai Chand, in his statement has stated that damage reports of illicit felling were prepared at the instance and in presence of Ravinder Sharda, the then Range Officer, Sri Naina Devi Ji with whom the amount of damages was deposited personally by Polu, Dhani Ram, Amar Chand and Bhupinder Singh. 18. PW 1 Surjan Singh, PW 2 Ranjit Singh, PW 5 Daya Ram, PW 6 Brahma Nand and PW 7 Rattan Chand were declared hostile. There is no worth believing evidence on record, who was driving the van PCS 1008 and who were the occupants of the van. There is no evidence how many logs of khair wood were loaded in the van, recovered and taken into possession by the police or forest officials. There is no positive evidence regarding the demand of money. The van was not taken into possession on the spot. It has come in evidence that van was produced by its owner of his own much later to the investigating officer. 19. PW 19 Ramesh Chand, Temple Officer, Sri Naina Devi Ji has stated that on 11.3.1998 and 13.2.1998, he had taken the specimen signatures and handwritings of Rai Chand, Daulat Ram, Bhupinder Singh, Jobinder Ex. PW 19/A-1 to Ex. PW 19/A-27. He has not identified Bhupinder in the court nor he has stated that he knew him personally. The Finger Print Expert report Ex. PW 22/O is of no help to the prosecution, inasmuch as PW 21 Fateh Singh has stated that he did not know accused Polo Ram personally in whose presence thumb impressions of Polo Ram Ex. PW 21/A and Ex.PW …9… 21/B were allegedly taken on 27.5.1997 and Ex. PW 20/A and Ex. PW 20/B on 26.2.1997. PW 21 has stated that on 27.5.1997 the thumb impressions were taken in presence of Tehsildar, Bilaspur and on 26.2.1997 in presence of Dev Raj Naib Tehildar. PW 20 Dev Raj has not stated that he took the specimen thumb impressions on 26.2.1997 of Polo Ram respondent present in the court. He did not know Polo Ram personally. The Tehsildar, Bilaspur in whose presence the alleged thumb impressions of Polo Ram were obtained on 27.5.1997 has not been examined. 20. Rai Chand respondent has stated that damage reports were prepared in the presence of Ravinder Sharda, the then Range Officer, Sri Naina Devi Ji with whom the amount of damages was deposited. The order for compounding the cases by the Range Officer was endorsed on the damage reports under the signatures of Range Officer Ravinder Sharda. Daulat Ram respondent for preparation of damage reports has also stated similarly in his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It has come on record that composition fee was deposited in the treasury. Rai Chand and Daulat Ram have stated that damage reports were prepared in presence of Ravinder Sharda, the then Range Officer, Sri Naina Devi Ji and the order for compounding the case by the Range Officer was endorsed on the damage reports under the signatures of Range Officer Raviner Sharda. PW 12 Ravi Kumar has stated that Range Officer had also passed order for composition on the same day. The demarcation of khasra Nos. 32 and 113 in DPF Khal conducted by PW 11 Chandu Ram is of no significance in absence of demarcation report which has …10… not been placed on record. It has not been proved that composition fee was misappropriated by Rai Chand or Daulat Ram. 21. The learned Special Judge has properly appreciated the material on record in acquitting the respondents. The appellant has failed to make out a case for interference. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondents are discharged. ( Surjit Singh ), Judge. March 23, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.