IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 279 of 2002. Date of decision: 30.12.2008 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Vidya Singh ... Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant-State: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Ramesh Sharma, vice Mr. Naresh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, dated 9.2.2001, whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. F.I.R. Ext.PW-1/A was lodged with the Police Station, Bhawanagar at the instance of complainant Gehru Ram, son of Tula Ram, Forest Guard, Rupi. It was alleged in this complaint that on 19.2.1997, the accused Vidya Singh had stolen some timber from the unprotected forest, Rupi-Tehsil Nichar. He was caught by Timber Watcher Ramesh Kumar PW-5 at about 4.00 p.m. However, the accused left the timber and ran away from the spot. After the complaint was lodged, the Investigating Officer PW-7 HC Rajinder Singh, investigated the matter and purportedly made recovery of a number of scants of timber at two places. After investigation, Challan was filed against the accused. The accused was summoned. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, the accused has been acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment .yes. 2 As far as the recovery of timber is concerned, no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the said recovery since no disclosure statements of the accused have been proved on record. There is nothing on record to show that the alleged timber was recovered at the instance of the accused. No doubt, it is alleged that the timber was recovered in the presence of the accused but his mere presence does not mean that it was the accused who led the police to the place where the timber was recovered. The statement of PW-7 HC Rajinder Singh is totally silent in this regard. As far as the statements of PW-4 Jai Ram and PW-5 Ramesh Kumar are concerned, there are inherent contradictions between the statements made in the Court and the complaint lodged by the Forest Guard. As mentioned above, in the complaint it was alleged that the accused left the timber on the spot and ran away. However, according to Ramesh Kumar, they had apprehended the accused and they took him before the Pradhan who identified the accused. This statement is not only contradictory to the averments made in the complaint but no reliance can be placed on the statement since the Pradhan has not been produced to prove this fact. There is another contradiction in the statements of Jai Ram and Ramesh Kumar. According to Jai Ram, the accused was not taken to the Pradhan but to the Numberdar. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused in view of the aforesaid contradictions and faulty investigation. I find no reason to interfere in the judgment of the learned trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. December 30, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™