IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.702 of 2001 Date of decision : October 13, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Dhirju …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby respondent Dhirju, who was tried for an offence, under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution version, as per record, is that on 29th June, 2000, when PW-1 Durga Dutt, Forest Guard, accompanied by PW-2 Devi Ram and PW-3 Birbal, went to Malat forest, they saw one III-C Deodar tree lying felled and converted into four logs. Respondent was standing at the spot. Damage report was prepared. Confessional statement of the respondent was also recorded and he was required to sign it, but he ran away from the spot. Matter was reported to the Block Officer by PW-1 Durga Dutt, Forest Guard, who drafted the complaint and filed the same in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Prosecution examined Forest Guard, PW-1 Durga Dutt, Devi Ram PW-2 and Birbal PW-3 to prove the accusation. Trial Court acquitted the respondent, holding that the testimony of the Forest Guard and the abovenamed two witnesses did not prove the allegation. 4. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General and gone through the record. 5. PW-1 Durga Dutt and the two witnesses, who were accompanying him, namely PW-2 Devi Ram and PW-3 Birbal did not say that they saw the respondent doing anything on the spot, leave alone trying to carry the tree already made into logs, indicating that the tree might have been felled and converted into logs by him. Not only this, they even do not say that the respondent confessed his guilt. Now, if the respondent had not confessed his guilt, where was the occasion for preparing his confessional statement and calling upon him to put his signature thereon. Conduct of the respondent in running away from the spot does not point to his guilt. When he had not confessed his guilt and was asked by the Forest Guard and the witnesses to sign the confessional statement, he was supposed to have got panicked and run away. There is nothing unnatural about his conduct. Moreover, the two witnesses examined to seek corroboration to the testimony of the Forest Guard are stock witnesses of the Forest Guard, as admitted by the Forest Guard himself. …3… 6. In view of the abovestated position, I see no reason for interfering with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Magistrate. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. October 13, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J