IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Surjit Singh, and Kuldip Singh, Judge.
State of H.P. - Appellant.
Vs.
Pawan Kumar & ors. - Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2004.
Decided on : March 23, 2011.
Indian Forest Act - Illegal Felling of Khair Wood - Sections 32, 33, 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act, Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Fact of the Case:
The respondents were accused of illegally cutting and converting khair wood without permission, forging damage reports, and transporting khair wood without a permit. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt. Hostile witnesses and lack of concrete evidence regarding the illicit felling and transportation of khair wood led to the acquittal of the respondents.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the illegal felling and transportation of khair wood, forgery of damage reports, and the involvement of the respondents in these activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of concrete and reliable evidence in proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The lack of credible evidence and the testimony of hostile witnesses influenced the court's decision to acquit the respondents.
Final Decision: The appeal by the State was dismissed, and the respondents were acquitted. The court found no merit in the appeal and discharged the bail bonds of the respondents.
Kuldip Singh, Judge,
This appeal has been directed against the judgement, dated 11.6.2004, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2000, acquitting the respondents for offences, punishable under sections 32, 33, 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act, Sections 379, 420, 467, 468 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that respondents had illegally cut, felled and converted khair wood into logs without permission of the Forest Department and removed the same from the forest. The respondents were found transporting khair wood in a van without permit. The respondents conspired and forged two damage reports in the name of other persons to the tune of Rs.12247/- and Rs. 7247/-.
3. There was rumour in the area that illicit felling of khair trees from government forest Khal had been taking place. A van was intercepted by the forest guard accompanied by others in which khair wood was loaded, which was taken into possession alongwith the van. It was alleged that van was being driven by respondent No. 1 Pawan Kumar, he alongwith Polu Ram and others were intercepted. The forged damage reports No. 28 and 29 dated 21.2.1996 were prepared in the names of other persons. The composition money was deposited in the government treasury. The damage reports were forged by respondent No. 4 Rai Chand, Forest Guard and respondent No. 3 Daulat Ram, Block Officer.
4. PW 11 Chandu Ram Sharma, Tehsildar during investigation, demarcated the forest from where khair wood was cut in presence of PW 8 Madan Lal, Field Kanungo and PW 9 Chatar Singh, Patwari. The damage reports were taken into possession from PW 12 Ravi Kumar, Forest Guard and PW 15 Anant Ram, Forest Guard. The specimen handwritings of the respondents were taken by PW 21 Fateh Singh before Executive Magistrates PW 19 Ramesh Chand and PW 20 Dev Raj. The case was investigated by PW 22 Kashmiru Ram. The opinion of Finger Prints Expert was obtained. PW 18 Dr. Lalit Mohan, D.F.O., Wild Life gave sanction to prosecute respondent No. 4 Rai Chand. PW 22 R.C. Bargal gave sanction to prosecute respondent No. 3 Daulat Ram.
5. The respondent No. 1 Pawan Kumar was charged for offence, punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act. The respondent No. 2 Polu Ram and respondent No. 5 Bhupinder Singh were charged for offences, punishable under Sections 32, 33, 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act, Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B IPC. Respondent No. 3 Daulat Ram and respondent No. 4 Rai Chand were charged for offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B IPC and section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution has examined 23 witnesses and produced some documents. The statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution case. The respondents were given an opportunity to lead defence evidence after hearing them under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The respondents led no evidence in defence. The learned Special Judge acquitted the respondents, hence appeal by the State.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
8. In order to appreciate the prosecution case, it is necessary to consider the evidence, which has come on record. PW 1 Surjan Singh has stated that it is wrong to say that Rai Singh had demanded consideration from the occupants of the van and had allowed the forest produce khair wood to be transported and exported without transit pass and export permit. He was declared hostile. In the cross-examination conducted by the Prosecutor, he has stated that he did not make the statement Ex. PW 1/A. PW 2 Ranjit Singh has stated that he had not gone to the site of alleged illicit felling nor he had seen the logs of khair wood stacked in the area of Khal. He was declared
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.