IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.180 of 2001 Reserved on 4.1.2008 Date of decision 10.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Karam Singh and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr.M.A.Khan and Ms.Meenakshi Sharma, Dy. Advocate Generals. For the respondent: Mr. Virender Rathore, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma,J. The respondents were prosecuted in criminal case 56-II/98 under Sections 353,147,379 of the IPC and under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act in the court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie District Chamba and were acquitted on 2.6.1999. The State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 2.6.1999. The facts of the case in brief are that on 13.9.1999 at 10.30 p.m. Forest Guard Shakti Chand along with other officials was patrolling in Chalon forest. They heard noise of a felling tree. They went towards that side at 12.30 p.m. and found 7/8 persons cutting a Shisham tree. 3/4 persons after seeing them fled away whereas remaining persons caught by the officials, disclosed their names to be Karam Singh, Desh Raj, Jagrup and Budhi Singh. Karam Singh was holding drat in his hand and he scuffled with the complainant but the drat was snatched by the latter. 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 The matter was reported by the complainant Shakti Chand on the basis of which FIR was registered. The prosecution had examined as many as seven witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The trial court acquitted the respondents on 2.6.1999, hence this appeal against their acquittal. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the judgment dated 2.6.1999 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also argued that the prosecution had led cogent evidence and on that basis the respondents could not be acquitted. Mr.Virender Rathore, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent had supported the judgment dated 2.6.1999. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case carefully. PWs Shakti Parshad, Gagan Singh and Subhash Chand have stated in unison that when they reached the spot 3/4 persons were caught and the others fled away. These witnesses have not mentioned that the persons, namely, Jagrup, Desh Raj, Karam Singh and Budhi Singh who were apprehended at the spot were the same persons who were accused and present in the court. PW-1 Shakti Chand has stated that it took two hours from the place of hearing sound in reaching the spot where Shisham tree was cut. PW-2 Gagan Singh has stated that on 13.9.1997, when he and others were going in Deo Kohalan, they heard sound at 12.30 night and they started going towards that side and at the spot found few persons cutting the trees who disclosed their names as Karam Singh, Jagrup, Desh Raj and BidhiSingh. PW-3 Subhash Chand has similarly stated that he heard the noise at 12.30 at night in the forest. PW-1 had stated that they heard the noise at 10.30 p.m. and reached the spot after two hours. PW-3 has mentioned that he heard the noise at 12.30 p.m. and reached the spot in 1 ½ hours. There are material contradictions when the sound of feeling tree was heard by the three witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2 3 and PW-3. The prosecution has not explained how and in what capacity PW2 and PW-3 were accompanying Shakti Parsad PW-1 at mid night. PW-4 in whose presence the ‘aari’ was taken into possession has been declared hostile. PW-7 Partap Singh who had investigated the case had failed to produce any notification showing that the said forest area was to be notified as protected forest. No demarcation has been obtained by this witness. There are major contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. PW-4 has been declared hostile. PW-6 has not mentioned the name of the place where the photographs were taken. However, PW-5 has not mentioned that PW-6 also went with him for getting the photographs. The trial court after correctly appreciating the evidence has acquitted the accused. There is no merit in the appeal and the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate being well reasoned calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged January 10 ,2008(g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.