Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.134 of 2004. Date of Decision: September 23, 2010. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Tota Ram and others. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. G.R.Palsara, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (oral) : The respondents were tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, which has been assailed in this appeal by the State. 2. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. On 30th December, 1996, PW5 Shyam Lal Forest Guard, during the patrolling of ‘Bara beat’ in the ‘protected forest’, noticed a - 2 - stump of Deodar tree, which was cut afresh. On this, he reported the matter to the Block Officer concerned, who directed him to lodge the report in the Police Station. Said Forest Guard chalked out the damage report Ex.PW5/A and lodged the FIR Ex.PW8/A. 3. PW7 ASI Amar Singh visited the spot, prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/A and recovered 8 scants of Deodar from the locked room of one Paras Ram (not an accused in this case), after putting seizure hammer and took into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/A. 4. On 5th January, 1997, aforesaid Police Officer recorded the statement of respondent Tota Ram under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, pursuant to which, the recovery of some lopped branches of the Deodar tree were recovered from his cowshed, vide memo Ex.PW2/C and also took into possession the Axe Ex.P1 and Saw Ex.P2 vide memo Ex.PW2/A. The other respondents were roped into the case on the statement of co-accused Tota Ram - 3 - aforesaid allegedly disclosed while recording his disclosure statement. 5. On the completion of investigation, the challan was presented in the court, for the trial of the respondents under the aforesaid sections. 6. The respondents were charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Their case has been that of denial simplicitor. No evidence in defence was led. 7. At the end of trial, learned trial Court acquitted the respondents on the grounds that the prosecution has failed to prove that the forest in question is a ‘protected forest’ as no notification to this effect was placed and proved on record and lack of evidence to connect the respondents with the alleged crime. 8. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. - 4 - 9. Significantly, the recovery of 8 scants were not effected from any of the respondents. However, as per the prosecution case, it was recovered from one of the rooms of the house of Paras Ram, who is neither an accused nor a prosecution witness in this case. The recovered scants could not be connected in any way with the felled tree. It is also not decipherable from the record as to how the police could reach the respondent Tota Ram, who is alleged to have been involved in the alleged crime. The disclosure statement is in the form of confession, which is illegal and deprecated in law. It is also not a legal evidence to connect any of the respondents with the alleged crime. 10. Further on the statement of respondent Tota Ram, other respondents cannot be made accused in absence of the direct or other circumstantial evidence of a legal nature which could only points out towards the guilt of the respondents. 11. The recovery of the branches of Deodar from the cowshed of respondent Tota Ram, are - 5 - also not connected with the felled tree. There is also no evidence with respect to removal of the cut tree from the spot to constitute the offence of theft, in absence of which, neither the offence of theft under the Penal Code nor any offence under the Forest Act is made out. Thus, the acquittal of the respondents cannot be interfered with. The appeal filed by the State lacks merit, hence dismissed. 12. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time, during the proceedings of this case. 13. Send down the records. September 23, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.