IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.633 of 2002. Decided on: June 25, 2009. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Deen Mohammad ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr P.K.Sharma, Addl.A.G. For the respondent: Mr.Anand Sharma, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral): Heard Mr.P.K.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant / State and Mr.Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present criminal appeal has arisen after granting leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reference to the judgment dated 22.11.2001, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba, in Criminal Case No.174-II/97 for alleged involvement of the accused under Section 379/34 Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? …2… IPC and Sections 26, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 by acquitting the accused. 3. In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal, it is necessary to elaborate the prosecution case in brief. On 22.9.1996, at about 6 P.M., one Dhani Ram, son of Bajiru, had seen the accused Deen Mohammed felling two trees of Deodar in Dhatroond Reserve forest. Dhani Ram went to the quarter of complainant, namely, Prem Lal, Forest Guard to make a report to him but the complainant was not in his quarter. On 25.9.1996, when the complainant returned to his quarter, Dhani Ram informed it to him. In that sequence, the Forest Guard, the complainant, on 26.9.1996 inspected Dhatroond Reserve forest and noticed that two trees of Deodar have been illegally felled and timber thereof had also been removed. In that reference, the matter was reported to the police and after investigation, a case against the respondent / accused for alleged offence under Section 379/34 IPC and Sections 26, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was made out and accordingly challan was submitted to the Court. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses whereas the alleged accused / respondent had totally denied the prosecution case and had also controverted the felling of two trees of …3… Deodar from the said forest area and removal of its timber. PW-1 Prem Lal is the complainant, PW-2 Dhani Ram and PW- 6 Noor Mohammad are alleged eye-witnesses. PW-3 Nek Ram is a witness to the seizure memo Ext.PW-1/C, Ext.PW- 1/D and Ext.PW-2/A. PW-4 Prem Nath had been examined to prove the notification Ext.PA. PW-5 Shamsdeen, Kanungo, and PW-8 Gian Chand, Patwari had carried out the demarcation of the places from where the trees were illegally felled. PW-7 Sadik Mohammad and PW-9 Bhagwan Dass are the investigating officers. 5. On the basis of material on record, the following points were taken into consideration and Point No.1 was answered in negative and final order was passed acquitting the alleged accused / respondent:- i) Whether on 22.9.1996 at about 6 p.m. both the accused in furtherance of common intention illegally felled two trees of Deodar from Reserve Forest Dhatroond and thereafter removed the timber of the same out of the said forest? ii) Final order. 6. Learned trial Court has analyzed the prosecution witnesses and has found that though PW-2 and PW-6 were said to be the eye-witnesses of the prosecution but apparent …4… contradictions and inconsistencies were noticed from the testimonies of the statements of both the witnesses. There is apparent delay of about three days in lodging the F.I.R. which may be very vital aspect and fatal to the prosecution case for giving benefit of doubt in respect of the offence alleged against the accused / respondent. After going through the recovery memo, it could be inferred that the place of recovery is contrary to the actual recovery of the Deodar trees. The trial Court, on the analysis and the material on record, has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has rightly acquitted the alleged accused / respondent. Nothing has been brought on record, which may indicate the credibility of prosecution witnesses or the prosecution witnesses are inspiring confidence. 7. I am of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the case against the alleged accused / respondent beyond reasonable doubt and there are apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as well as in evidences as well as recovery, as being noticed above. As such, I have no occasion to interfere in the conclusion and verdict arrived at by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba. As a result of the above analysis, …5… the criminal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are hereby discharged. June 25, 2009. ( R.B.Misra ), J. (soni)