IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: Cr.A.No.723/2000 Date of Decision :1st May, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Tek Chand. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellant: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. . For Respondent. Mr.Daramvir Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 29th January, 2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, District Mandi, H.P. in Criminal Case No.12-1/98 titled as State of H.P. Vs. Tek Chand acquitting the accused of the charged offence under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 379 and 427 I.P.C. Complaint (Ext.PW-12) under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 379 and 427 I.P.C. was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi against the present accused. As per the complaint, Shri Baldev Chand (PW-1), Forest Guard, Incharge Chhapraha Beat, Pandoh Range, Nachan Forest Division, along with Perma Nand ( PW-2), were on patrolling duty in Baimal U.P.F., when on 6th March, 1995 they noticed that a ‘Chil’ tree had 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 been illicitly felled. Damage report No. 91/97 dated 6th March, 1995 was prepared on the spot and on inquiry, it was so confirmed that the accused had illegally felled the tree. The accused admitted his offence and signed his confessional statement. The timber was handed over on the Spurdari to Sh. Jeeva Nand in the presence of Shri Ram Singh. The accused was asked to pay the damage of Rs.11,668/- and since the same was not done, a notice was served upon him which also was not complied with, hence the present complaint against the accused. The accused was charged for an offence under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 379 and 427 I.P.C. to which he did not plead guilty and claim trial. In order to prove its case, the complainant examined Baldev Chand (PW-1), Parma Nand (PW-2), Ram Singh (PW-3), Jeeva Nand (PW-4), Maghu Ram (PW-5), Bhav Dev (PW-6), Vipan Sharma (PW-7), Sharam Ram (PW-8), Jagat Ram (PW-9), Khem Singh (PW-10), Megh Singh (PW-11) and Rakesh Sharma (PW-12). The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. The accused took the defence that the witnesses are inimical against him and even on an earlier occasion he had been falsely implicated in another case. Appreciating the material on record, the court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence for the reason that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the statements of the prosecution witnesses were replete with contradictions and there was no corroboration of the same. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 The sworn testimony of PW.1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 is material for ascertaining the guilt of the accused in the commission of the crime. In my view the statements of these witnesses does not inspire confidence and also do not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As per the version of PW-1 it was he and PW-2 who were on patrolling duty at the relevant time when they noticed the fact that a tree had been illicitly felled from the Government land. PW-2, however, has deposed that he was posted as Chowkidar at Government Nursery, which was at a distance of about 3 to 4 Kms. and was on duty at that time. Importantly the alleged incident has taken place at 4 P.M. on 6th March, 1995. This witness has also admitted that he was cited as witness in most of the cases by the prosecution/Department. The court below, appreciating the material on record, has held him to be a stock witness and has correctly not relied upon his sworn testimony to convict the accused to the charged offence. PW-1 and PW-4 have deposed that the wife of the accused was present at the site which fact further stands specifically contradicted by PW-3 as according to whom the wife of the accused was not present at the site. Ext.PW-12 gives yet another version. As per the complaint none was present at the site and only after an inquiry it was found that it was accused-Tek Chand who had felled the tree without the permission of the concerned department. As per the version of PW-3 the accused was carrying an axe in his hand which stands specifically denied by PW-4 and PW-1 is absolutely silent about the same. The axe, however, has not been 4 taken into possession by the concerned official and not produced in the Court. Sh. Ram Singh (PW-3) deposed that before he reached the spot of occurrence, PW-4 was already present which stands contradicted by PW-4 as according to him it was PW-3 who was present before he reached. PW-3 has admitted that both he and PW-4 are inimical towards the accused for the last 28-29 years. As per the version of PW-5, the damage report was prepared at the residence of PW-6 which fact also stands denied and contradicted by PW-6. It has come on record that the complaint was filed only when the money demanded by the Department was not deposited by the accused. The fact that there is animosity between the prosecution witnesses and the accused stands admitted by them. There is no recovery of axe which is alleged to have been carried by the accused in his hand. In my view the witnesses have materially contradicted themselves as also the record and cannot be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the court below. The material has been appreciated by the court in its entirety and there is no illegality or perversity in the same. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and the bail bonds are discharged. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 1, 2008(R) 5