IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.484 of 2000 Reserved on:07.01.2008. Decided on:January 10, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Ramla Devi ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant: Mr M.L.Chauhan, Addl. A.G. For the respondent: Mr Vikram Thakur, vice counsel. Kuldip Singh, Judge The State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 3.1.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chopal in case No.7-1 of 98/48-3 of 98 acquitting the respondent under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act (herein-after referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that at the time of patrolling of Pabas Beat by Lachhi Ram, Forest Guard and witness Sunder Singh on 30.8.1998 it was found that respondent had illicitly felled Deodar V/4, Kayal V/6, IV/2, III/3, Ban B/L V/20, IV/13, III/1, Kainth B/L III/3, Chalan V/3, IV/2, III/2 Mohru V/2 total 61 trees at Pabas. The damage report was prepared in presence of Sunder Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… Singh, the respondent confessed her guilt and also signed Ikbalnama. The timber was handed over to Sunder Singh on supurdari. After conclusion of investigation, the respondent was prosecuted under Section 33 of the Act. The notice of accusation was put to the respondent under Section 33 of the Act to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she pleaded her innocence but did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent, hence, this appeal by the State. 3. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the State, Mr Vikram Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and gone through the record. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that learned Judicial Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent. The prosecution has proved the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Judicial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the material on record. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. 4. PW-1 Lachhi Ram has stated that on 30.8.1998 while patrolling Pabas Dehat beat 61 trees of Deodar V/4, Kayal V/6, IV/2, III/3, Ban B/L, V/20, IV/13, III/1, Kainth B/L III/3, Chalan V/3, IV/2, III/2 Mohru V/2 were found cut and damage report Ext.PW-1/A was prepared which was signed by PW-2 Sunder Singh. The illicit timber was handed over to PW-2 Sunder Singh on Supurdarinama Ext.PW- …3… 1/B. He has stated that the respondent confessed her guilt. In cross examination, he has stated that he did not fill the Ikbalnama printed on the reverse of Ext.PW-1/A. He has admitted that he did not fill in the name of the respondent in Ikbalnama. He denied the suggestion that respondent did not put any signatures in presence of Sunder Singh. 5. PW-2 Sunder Singh has stated that he does not know who cut the trees. The beat Guard handed over the timber to him vide Supurdarinama Ext.PW-1/B. In cross examination, he has admitted that he is a Chowkidar in the jungle and at the relevant time he was working under Lachhi Ram Guard. He categorically stated that respondent did not put any signatures in his presence. PW-4 Kedar Singh, Patwari has proved tatima Ext.PW-4/A. In cross examination, he has stated that he cannot tell the damage written by him on Ext.PW-4/A relates to whom. PW-5 Sant Ram B.O. has stated that he conducted investigation on the basis of damage report Ext.PW-1/A. The statement of respondent Ext.PW-5/D was recorded by him. In cross examination, he has stated that no demarcation was obtained, no tatima of the spot was taken. He is not in a position to say that Patwari found felled trees on the ownership land. 6. PW-2 Sunder Singh has stated that respondent did not put any signatures in his presence. Ikbalnama on the reverse of Ext.PW-1/A is of no help to the prosecution inasmuch as important material particulars in Ikbalnama are blank. The Ikbalnama has not been proved, PW-2 Sunder Singh has not identified signatures of …4… respondent on Ikbalnama. The Ikbalnama is allegedly signed by respondent but there is nothing on record to show that before obtaining the signatures on Ikbalnama contents of Ikbalnama were read over to respondent. The Ikbalnama is on printed form but prosecution has led no evidence that respondent was made aware of contents of Ikbalnama before she put her signatures on Ikbalnama. It has also come on record that respondent has her ownership land near the land from where the trees were allegedly felled by her. No demarcation report was obtained in order to point out that she actually felled trees from the Government land. The prosecution has not led any independent witness to prove that respondent has felled the trees from Pabas Dehat. The learned Judicial Magistrate has appreciated the material on record and has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent. 7. The prosecution has failed to make out any case for interference. Hence, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent, are discharged. January 10, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)