IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2002. Decided on : 22.4.2009. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Jeet Ram ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? For the Appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : None. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 6.7.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.3, Shimla in case No. 2/2 of 1996 acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under Sections 33, 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act and Section 379 IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent in between 26.5.1996 to 31.5.1996 had cut one deodar tree from his own land without permission and one deodar tree III-B from Government Forest No. 29-C and converted the timber of those trees into scants. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Municipal Corporation, Shimla vide letter dated 3.6.1996 informed the Station House Officer, Police Station, Chotta Shimla that respondent had cut one dry deodar tree from his ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 own land without permission of Municipal Corporation, he requested for registration of a case and accordingly, FIR Ex.PW-5/A came to be registered, during investigation 50 planks and 36 ‘Bagals’ were recovered vide Ex.PW-1/A, site plans Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B were prepared. The statements of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court against respondent for offence punishable under Sections 33, 41, 42 Indian Forest Act and Section 379 IPC and accordingly charge was framed against the respondent. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses and produced some documents on record. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case. The respondent led no evidence in defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent on 6.7.2001, hence this appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have gone through the record. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. It has been submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt but the Court below has erred in acquitting the respondent. 5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Municipal Corporation, Shimla on 3.6.1996 had informed Station House Officer, Police Station, Chotta Shimla that respondent had cut one dry deodar tree without permission from his own land. The police came into action and proceeded against the respondent for cutting two deodar trees one from his own land and another from Government land. PW-1 Bhanu Dutt, Deputy Ranger has stated that recovery memo Ex.PW-1/A bears his signatures at point ‘A’. He put the hammer on the recovered timber vide Ex.PW-1/B, the CFT of the timber is given in Ex.PW-1/C. In cross-examination he has stated that he does not know whether the recovered timber tallied with the stumps of the cut trees. 3 PW-2 Rameshwar Singh is not an eye witness of the cutting of the trees or of recovery, hence his statement is not relevant. PW-3 Ram Gopal, Forest Guard has stated that on his inquiry, it was found that trees were cut by respondent. He informed the office, D.R.O. and Divisional Forest Officer and thereafter FIR was registered. The recovered timber was handed over to him on sapurdari vide Ex.PW-1/A which bears his signatures at point ‘B’. The cutting implements such as saw etc. were also handed over to him on sapurdari. In cross-examination, he has stated that he does not have personal knowledge who cut the trees. PW-4 ASI Ram Singh has proved the endorsement Ex.PW-4/A on letter dated 3.6.1996. PW-5 S.I. Amar Singh has stated that on receipt of letter dated 3.6.1996, FIR Ex.PW-5/A was registered. PW-6 Karan Jeet Singh, Head Constable has stated that the case was investigated by ASI Ram Singh and thereafter, it was handed over to him. He prepared site plans Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B. In cross- examination, he has stated that cutting implement such as ‘Farnai’ was not brought in the Court. He has also stated that nobody had seen actual cutting of the trees. He had not taken samples from the recovered timber and from the stumps for examination. PW-7 Desh Raj is the Carpenter, who worked in the house of respondent. He has stated that timber was recovered in his presence. He has not supported the prosecution and was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the prosecution but nothing favourable to the prosecution was extracted in his cross-examination. 6. The Divisional Forest Officer has reported the matter to police vide letter dated 3.6.1996 that respondent had cut one dry deodar tree from his own land. The respondent was prosecuted for cutting two trees one from his own land and one from the Government land. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that respondent had cut any tree either from his own land or from Government land. So far as the Government land is concerned, no demarcation was conducted in order to 4 identify the Government land. The prosecution is relying on recovery of wooden planks and ‘Bagals’ from the house of respondent but recovery has not been connected with the trees which were allegedly cut. The Investigating Officer has stated that he did not take samples from the recovered timber and from the stumps so as to connect the recovered timber with the stumps. There is no evidence on record that two cut trees had approximately how much timber in terms of measurement. The prosecution has not examined any eye witness so as to connect the respondent for the cutting of the trees. Simply because some recovery was made from the house of the respondent that does not mean that the respondent has committed alleged offence. 7. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of offence under Sections 33, 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act and Section 379 IPC against the respondent. The learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record in acquitting the respondent. No case for interference is made out, resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. The case property shall stand confiscated to the State. ( Kuldip Singh ), April 22, 2009. Judge. (GR)