IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 517 of 2004 Decided on : 19.05.2011 ________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….. …Appellant. Versus Ramanand and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the appellant : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondents : Ms Shikha Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). The State is in appeal against the acquittal of the respondents herein, who shall here-in-after be called as ‘the accused’, denoted as A-1 and A-2, respectively, for the offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short ‘the Act’), by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Cr. Case No. 21/3 of 2003, titled State of Himachal Pradesh 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 vs. Ramanand and another, vide judgment dated 26.8.2004. 2. Shorn of details the prosecution case was that on 16.8.2002, PW-1, Shri R.S. Banyal, DFO, Rajgarh, along with Range Officer, PW-4, Shri Sanjeev Kumar and other forest officials was on way back from Habban to Rajgarh. PW-2, Shri Amar Chand, Forest Guard, had also been instructed to meet them at the boundary of his beat. After taking him along the forest officials went to Kotal (Neri Kotli). There they found that A-1 Ramanand had installed a sawmill. However, he was not having any registration certificate in respect of the said sawmill, which was against the forest laws and rules. On these allegations, damage report Ex.PW-2/A was issued by PW-2 Amar Chand, Forest Guard. 3. On completion of investigation, the accused were sent up to face trial. On being served with Notice of Accusation, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution evidence followed. In all, it examined four witnesses. 4. On close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined by the learned trial Court under Section 313 Cr. P.C, wherein their defence was that of total 3 denial, innocence and false implication. In defence, no evidence was led. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court proceeded to acquit the accused. 6. I have heard the learned Dy. Advocate General for the appellant-State, learned counsel for the respondents-accused and gone through the record. 7. The learned trial Magistrate has acquitted the accused mainly on the grounds that the sawmill was not in exclusive possession of the accused; the prosecution evidence is replete with contradictions, which goes to the very root of the case and it could not be safely concluded that the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8. As per prosecution the sawmill was found to have been installed in khasra No. 742/1, measuring 1 biswa. However, it is apparent from the copy of jamabandi for the year 1996-97, Ex.PW-3/C that the land is recorded in the joint ownership and possession of one Surat Ram and A-2 Bhagat Ram. Admittedly, the said Surat Ram has not been arrayed as co-accused. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred for want of any cogent and reliable evidence that it was only A-2 Bhagat Ram, who along with his son A-1 Ramanand, had installed the 4 sawmill in question and the said Surat Ram, who was also co-owner in joint possession of the land, where the sawmill was allegedly found to have been installed, was in no way connected with the same. 9. There is on record a confessional statement (Ex.PW-2/A), said to have been made by A-1 Ramanand, which was allegedly recorded by one Bhim Singh, a forest official of forest range Rajgarh, who though was cited as a witness for the prosecution, yet was given up. In such circumstances, confessional statement Ex.PW-2/A cannot be relied upon. Even otherwise, such statement made to forest officials, who were vested with police powers is hit under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as has been held by this court in State of H.P. vs. Tara Chand and others, 1994 (4) S.L.J. 3333. 10. It is in evidence in the statement of PW-4, Sanjeev Kumar, Range Officer that there were 5-6 houses near the spot scene. However, no independent witness was associated to lend credence to the prosecution version that sawmill was installed and was being operated by the accused without a licence. 11. Whereas, according to PW-1, Shri R.S. Banyal, DFO, fresh ‘burada’ (saw dust) was lying on the spot to suggest that timber had been recently sawn in the 5 sawmill, PW-3 Shri Bhag Singh, Kanungo, has stated that there was no ‘burada’ on the spot. Still further, PW-4, Shri Amar Chand, Forest Guard has stated that ‘burada’ lying on the spot was old and had turned black, which shows that the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses stand discredited owing to inherent contradictions. 12. On appraisal of the evidence on record, I am satisfied that the learned trial court was correct in returning the findings of ‘not guilty’ against the accused. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (V.K.Sharma) Judge. May 19, 2011. Lsp*