IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 717 of 2002 Reserved on: 22.10.2010 Date of decision: 12.11.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Devi Singh and others … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No 1. Respondents No. 2 and 3 already dead. V.K. Ahuja , J.: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Special Judge (Forests) Shimla, dated 4.6.2002, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 379, 420, 120-B I.P.C., Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sections 33, 41, 42 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 29.9.1993 Shri Bhau Ram, the then R.O. Saraswati Nagar alongwith other officials checked the illicit felling in Compartment No. 14-B Chhajpur Forest. During the course of said checking, 3 stumps of 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Deodar trees having Khudan Mark 13/92 and 15/92 respectively on two stumps of the trees and third stump of the tree having no Khudan Mark were found. One stump having Khudan Mark 13/92 was of the Dia of 122 C.M., another stump having Khudan Mark 15/92 of the Dia of 110/95 C.M. and third stump which was having no Khudan Mark was found of the Dia of 50/60 C.M. The logs and scants of the trees of said stumps were found lying on the spot, which were seized by PW-21 Bhau Ram by affixing seizure hammer. The said logs and scants were measured. The timber list was prepared and complaint was prepared and sent to police for registration of the case. An FIR was registered and the case was investigated by Enforcement South Zone Shimla. During the investigation, it was also revealed that the said trees had been cut and felled by respondent No. 1 Devi Singh. The record of Timber Distribution was also checked and during that time respondent No. 2 Shobh Ram, now deceased, was posted as Forest Ranger (Block Officer), while respondent No. 3 Bhag Singh, now deceased, was posted as Forest Guard in the year 1993. Accordingly, on completion of the investigation, the challan was filed against the respondents before the learned Special Judge, who tried the respondents as detailed above, leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the judgment passed by the learned Court, it is clear that the trial Judge has also considered the evidence 3 as against two of the respondents, who are already dead as mentioned above and the evidence consists of the statements of the witnesses, who have deposed against all the three accused. However, since two of the respondents are already dead, this Court has to consider the evidence only as against respondent Devi Singh, who was a private person and the allegations were that the trees of three stumps had been cut and felled by the present respondent or at his instance. Therefore, the evidence led by the prosecution has to be appreciated in the light of the role played by the present respondent. 5. It is clear from a perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution that there is no direct evidence considering of the statement of any person who may have seen the trees being cut by the present respondent or at his instance. The prosecution case merely rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Statements of PW-1 Yoginder Singh, PW-3 Dwakar Sharma and PW-21 Bhau Singh, are to this effect that they alongwith other officials checked illicit felling in Compartment No. 14-B of Chhajpur DPF on 29.9.1993. During the course of such checking one stump having a dia of 100/over having Khudan Mark 13/92, another stump having a dia of 100/over having Khudan Mark 15/92 and third stump of the dia below 100 Cms having no Khudan Mark of Deodar were found. 211 logs and scants of the trees of said stumps were lying there which were seized, measured, taken into possession and given on sapurdari vide recovery and sapurdari memo Ext. PW1/A, but it is not the case of the prosecution that these trees were recovered from the possession of respondent No. 1 at any time. 4 6. According to T.D. Register Ext. PW16/E, the tree having Khudan Mark 13/92 had been allotted to Pyare Lal and the tree having Khudan Mark 15/92 have been allotted in favour of PW-20 Keshu but both the trees so allotted were of Class-II. The T.D. Permit Ext. PW1/B had been granted in favour of PW-20 Keshu. The prosecution case was that these two persons had not cut and removed the trees allotted in their favour, but the respondent in connivance with other respondents who were forest officials felled and removed the trees of stumps mentioned and shown in spot maps. PW-20 Keshu Ram has not stated that these trees were cut at the instance of the respondent. He had only shown stumps of the trees to the police. Therefore, his statement does not establish the prosecution case. Statements of PW-12 Kundan Singh and PW-18 Chura Mani, do not substantiate the case of the prosecution. Statement of PW-19 Salig Ram was also not material, who turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Similarly PW-12, PW-18 and PW-19 have not stated anything as against the respondent. 7. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution case does not stand proved from the evidence led by the prosecution and there is no merit to hold that the guilt of the respondent was established by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. The findings so recorded by the learned Special Judge after due consideration of the evidence cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 5 8. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by respondent No. 1 shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), November 12, 2010 Judge (BSS) 6