HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 178 of 2004 Decided on: 13.9.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Bhajju and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., dated 10.12.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge for offences punishable under Sections 379/34 IPC and Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.1.1999, PW-2 Narayan Dutt made a complaint to the police that all the accused persons had forcibly entered into his Ghasni land without his consent, cut one chil tree and made 2-3 logs of the same. On this report, an FIR was registered. During investigation of the case, on demarcation, it is was found that the accused persons had cut the tree from the forest land and not from the Ghasni of the ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - complainant Narayan Dutt. Therefore, a damage report under the Indian Forest Act was prepared, the logs of the chil tree were taken into possession and after investigation, the challan was filed under the aforementioned Sections against the respondents, who were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The allegations made by the complainant vide his complaint Ext.PW-2/A were that the accused persons had forcibly cut the chil tree from his land comprised in Khasra No.1502/409. On this report, the case was registered and during investigation of the case, the demarcation of the place was taken from PW-6 Shri Maan Singh, Field Kanungo, who proved his report Ext.PW-6/A in this regard. A perusal of this report clearly shows, as was observed by the learned trial Court, that he had concluded that the tree was not found in the private land of the complainant or any other person, but the tree in question was found in Khasra No.411. This Khasra No.411 is entered in the copy of jamabandi Ext.PW-6/B in the ownership of the State of H.P. and in the cultivation column, it is entered in the name of Forest Department. The Field Kanungo PW-6 Shri Maan Singh, while giving the demarcation, had nowhere observed that he demarcated Khasra No.411 and found that the tree was found cut from this Khasra Number. The charge as against the respondents was that they had cut the tree from this forest land comprised in Khasra No.411. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove by taking the demarcation or - 3 - adducing other evidence that this tree was found cut from Khasra No.411. 5. Thus, in view of the above discussion, I have no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tree had been cut from the government land. Therefore, the offence in question cannot be said to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 6. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. September 13, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge