IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 56 of 2002. Decided on: 22nd March, 2011. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Murti Ram and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For respondents No. 2, 4, 7, 8. : Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate. For respondent No. 3. : Mr. P.C. Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 5 and 6. : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral) : State has appealed against the judgment dated 20.10.2001, of the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondent Murti Ram and others (hereinafter called accused), have been acquitted of charge, under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 167, 218, 201 and 120-B of the India Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Accused-respondent Murti Ram and his deceased co-accused Mohi Ram were petty forest contractors. They used 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. - 2 - to enter into agreements with private land owners to purchase timber trees standing on private land and after obtaining permission from Forest Authorities, lumber those trees. In the year 1974, they submitted 11 applications alongwith affidavits and agreements of 11 private owners of land, situated in village Sharach, to the D.F.O. with the request to mark the trees, standing on the land described in those 11 applications. D.F.O. marked those applications to accused Satya Dev Sharma, who was then working as Range Officer, with the direction to mark the trees on the private land described in those applications, after obtaining demarcation from the revenue officials. 3. Satya Dev Sharma approached Shri Sher Singh (deceased), the then S.D.O.(Civil) for carrying out the demarcation. Said Sher Singh carried out the demarcation with the assistance of Kanungo, Kanwar Singh (now dead) and accused-respondent Hari Dass, also a Kanungo. Trees were marked by Satya Dev Sharma, Range Officer and Bir Singh, respondent-accused, who was Block Officer and Kewal Ram, accused, who were then working as Forest Guards. 4. 765 trees were marked. It was certified by S.D.O. (Civil) Sher Singh (now dead), Hari Dass, Kanungo and the above-named Forest Officials-accused that no tree had been marked on Government land and all the marked trees stood on the private land described in the applications. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid marking lists and the recommendation of Revenue and Forest Officials, D.F.O., Chopal granted permission to fell trees included in the lists to - 3 - Khajan Singh and Sobha Ram on 24.07.1975. The trees were felled by Khajan Singh and Sobha Ram, pursuant to the aforesaid felling order. The trees yielded 13650+80452 scants of timber. The list of those scants was submitted to the D.F.O, seeking permission to export the same. Permission was granted vide Ex. PW52/A-20. 6. While investigating case F.I.R. No. 69/77, Superintendent of Police, noticed that in the garb of felling of trees on private land in village Sharach, a large scale felling of trees had taken place on Government land. He made a report to S.H.O., Police Station, Chopal, who registered a case vide F.I.R. No. 102/1977, Ex. P-B. The case was investigated. During the course of investigation, PW-28 Abhey Pant, S.D.O. (Civil) demarcated the land on which marking was required to be done. He also demarcated the adjoining Government land. His report is Ex. PW-28/A and its enclosures are Tatimas Ex. PW-23/A to Ex. PW-23/C. List of stumps was prepared by PW-42 Liaq Ram, Range Officer. 7. According to the prosecution, there was a conspiracy among the private respondents-accused including deceased Mohi Ram and the officials of Revenue and Forest Departments, named as accused, to fell trees from Government land, in the garb of felling from private land and in pursuance of that conspiracy, 1792 trees had been felled from Government land and 54 trees from private land of land owners, other than those, who had applied for felling permission. - 4 - 8. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code alongwith relevant papers, was filed in the Court of learned Special Judge (Forests), who after complying with the provisions of Section 207, Cr. P.C. and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel, charged the respondents with the offences of criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating, preparation of incorrect record under I.P.C. and offence of misconduct under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 9. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Prosecution examined 69 witnesses, besides proving a large number of documents to substantiate its case. Respondents in their statements, under Section 313, Cr. P.C., denied that there was any conspiracy of the type, alleged by the prosecution or that the felling of trees had been carried out on Government land or even private land, other than the land mentioned in the applications. 10. Learned trial Court concluded that the case of the prosecution that felling had taken place on Government land or private land of some persons, other than those in whose names applications had been submitted, did not stand established. Consequently, respondents were acquitted. 11. Learned trial Court has concluded that demarcation given by Shri Abhey Pant (PW-28), suffers from no illegality or irregularity. However, it has been held by the learned trial Court that stumps, which were found on Government land and also on private land, other than the land of 11 applicants, do not stand - 5 - connected with the trees, which were marked by respondent Satya Dev Sharma, Bir Singh and Kewal Ram, on the basis of demarcation given by late Sher Singh, S.D.O. (Civil) and his subordinate field staff, namely, Kanwar Singh and accused Hari Dass, both Kanungos. Learned trial Court has given this finding on the basis of testimony of PW-42 Liaq Ram, Range Officer. 12. We have heard learned Deputy Advocate General, as also learned counsel representing the respondents and gone through the record. 13. We find ourselves in agreement with the findings of learned trial Court that the stumps found on Government land and some private land, other than the land in respect of which applications were moved, do not stand connected with the trees that were marked on the private land of 11 applicants. PW-42 Liaq Ram, who, on the basis of demarcation given by PW-28 Abhey Pant counted the stumps on Government land very categorically testified that most of stumps were decayed and rotten and hammer mark was not decipherable and also the stumps were very old. Now, when the hammer mark, which was supposed to have been embossed on the trees by the accused- respondents Satya Dev Sharma, Bir Singh, Kewal Ram, Forest Officials, was not available on the stumps counted on Government land and the private land, other than the land described in the applications, it cannot be said that the stumps so found on Government land and private land were of the trees - 6 - marked by the aforesaid four Forest Officials, who are accused in this case. 14. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the fact that there were only 1792 stumps, on the land on which trees were shown to have been marked, itself is enough to jump to the conclusion that the rest of the trees were marked on Government land. The circumstance cannot be used as substitute for positive evidence, especially when the stumps, which were found on the Government land, do not stand connected with the trees, which were shown to have been marked on the private land. Case of the prosecution is that 1792 stumps found on the Government land are of the trees illicitly felled by respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. There is no evidence that the trees of which these stumps are, had been felled by the respondents. Reliance is also placed on the testimony of PW-69 Daya Ram (approver) by the prosecution. Testimony of this witness does not pertain to the felling of trees on Government land. The witness stated that some trees were felled on private land, for which compounding was done by Kewal Ram, Forest Guard, who is respondent No. 8. The witness says that respondent Kewal Ram was not competent to compound the matter. He has nowhere stated that any felling was done on any Government forest or Government land. Further, his statement that some felling of unmarked trees, on private land, had taken place, is not corroborated by any independent evidence. The witness himself was an accomplice. He became a witness, on account of tender of pardon to him and, therefore, his statement - 7 - unless corroborated by some independent witness, cannot be used to record a finding that unmarked trees on private land had been felled. 15. Similarly, the prosecution has failed to prove that affidavit Ex. PW-17/G of Piaria alongnwith his application Ex. PW-52/A-2, application Ex. PW-52/A-3, affidavit Ex. PW-17/H of Sher Singh, affidavit Ex. PW-17/J of Ram Chand and affidavit Ex. PW-17/K of Relu Ram have been forged by accused Mohi Ram, Murti Ram and Gainda Singh. PW-17 Partap Singh identified the deponents. He identified the deponents from personal knowledge. PW-50 Daulat Ram, scribe of the affidavit has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Prosecution has failed to prove that the signatures on the applications were forged by accused Mohi Ram, Murti Ram and Gainda Singh. 16. In view of the abovestated position, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 22, 2011. (bhupender) - 8 -