In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented by the prosecution must be cogent, reliable, and sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

This is an appeal against the judgment dated 30.6.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur whereby the accused-respondents(hereinafter referred to as the accused) have been acquitted of the accusations under Sections 32 read with with Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-5 Sukh Ram, the then forest guard of Jhandhor Beat was on patrol duty in Dehan Jungle on 18.2.1990 at about 9 p.m. when he saw the accused felling the Khair trees in the said forest. When he was making inquiries from the accused, Bachhu Ram and Amar Chand also came there. They were also joined in the process of inquiry by PW-5. The Khair trees, numbering 10, were found to have been felled and cut with the help of saw and axe and were converted into 14 logs. The accused admitted the commission of the offence and a damage report Ex.PW-3/A was prepared by the said forest guard. He further prepared a confessional statement Ex.PW-5/A which was signed by accused Hazarra Singh and Mangal Singh but accused Arjun Singh refused to sign the same. Such statement was signed by Amar Chand and thumb marked by Bachu Ram. The timber was taken in possession by the forest guard vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/A. PW-3 Ram Chand, Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, was also called on the spot. Statements of Ram Chand, Amar Chand and Bachu Ram were recorded and attested by the Block Officer PW-6 Sounu Ram. Further statements of Mangal Singh and Hazarra accused were recorded by the Block Officer which are Exs. PW-3/E and Ex. PW-3/F whereby the said accused had agreed to pay the compensation. Nakal Aks Shajra Kishtwar about the place from where the trees were felled was got prepared by the forest officials from PW-1 Shankar Singh which is Ex.PW-1/A and a copy of jamabandi of the concerned land from which the trees were felled Ex. PW-1/B was also obtained. Copies of Notification under Sections 29 and 30 of the Indian Forest Act have also been placed on record which are Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B. Since the accused failed to pay the compensation, the concerned Range Officer PW-4 Bali Ram prepared complaint Ex.PW-4/B and submitted it to the concerned Court. The accused were tried for the accusations under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act by the learned trial Magistrate who acquitted them as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal.

3. I have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General and the learned Counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records.

4. In view of the statement of PW-1 Shankar Singh Patwari read and with copy of Aks Sajra Kishtwar which is Ex.PW-1/A, copy of Jamabandi Ex.PW-1/B, copies of Notifications Exs.PW-2/A and PW-2/B, it is firmly established that sometimes on or before 18.2.1990, ten Khair trees were illicitely felled and converted into logs in Dehan U.F., therefore, the only question which requires determination in this appeal is whether the said trees were felled by the accused or by someone else.

5. To prove that the trees were felled and converted into logs by the accused, the prosecution has examined PW-3 Ram Chand, PW-5 Sukh Ram and PW-6 Sounu Ram. It was PW-5 Sukh Ram who is alleged to have detected the commission of the offence and found the accused felling and cutting the trees. The statement of said PW-5, however, does not inspire confidence. He has stated that on 18.2.1990 at about 8.00 p.m. he was on patrol duty in Jungle Dehan when he found the accused person cutting the Khair trees. Subsequently, he has stated that it was at 9.00 p.m. that he found the accused person felling the trees in the Jungle. There is no explanation as to how at 9.00 p.m. in the night in the month of February he was patrolling the forest, how could he recognize the accused in the darkness and how he managed to count the stumps of the fell trees and the logs in the darkness of the night. It is also not probable that in the Jungle at the place and time when he allegedly detected the offenders he