The need for consistent and credible evidence in criminal cases, and the requirement to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - The instant Criminal Appeal filed under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays challenge to judgment of acquittal dated 14.12.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., Camp at Nalagarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 11-NL/10 of 2006/05, reversing the judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2005, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, in Criminal Appeal No. 360/2 of 2000, whereby the learned trial Court held all the accused guilty, except accused Bagga Ram, of having committed the offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC) and under section 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Court held accused Bagga Ram guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C. and further convicted and sentenced all the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, each.

2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that on 13.03.2000, police after having received information that some people were illegally cutting ''Khair'' trees from the forest seal, formed a raiding party associating Forest Guards. At about 6.00 p.m., the raiding party allegedly found some persons carrying some logs on their shoulders and thereafter, stacking the same in the kiln of Contractor Bagga Ramaccused No. 5. Allegedly, such persons were apprehended. On interrogation, they revealed that they had earlier also sold ''Khair'' logs to Contractor Bagga Ram-accused No. 5. The raiding party allegedly found eleven logs duly peeled and five logs with bark on the spot, i.e. the kiln of accused No. 5. At the instance of the accused, the police recovered axes and saws allegedly concealed by them under the bushes in the forest and took the same in its possession. The police also got the land demarcated and found that the trees were cut from Government land. After completion of the investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law, which being satisfied that a prima-facie case exists against the accused, framed Charge under Section 379 of IPC and section 42 of the Indian Forest Act against accused Durga Ram, Mehar Singh, Madan Lal and Santokha, whereas accused Bagga Ram came to be charged for an offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C., to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Investigating Agency with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 9 witnesses, whereas accused in their statements recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ''Cr.P.C.'') denied the prosecution case in toto and also led evidence in their defence.

4. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, vide judgment dated 14.09.2005 held all the accused guilty, except accused Bagga Ram, of having committed offences punishable under Sections 379 IPC and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Learned trial Court held accused Bagga Ram guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C. also, and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-each.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, all the respondents-accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, (HP), Camp at Nalagarh, who vide judgment dated 14th December, 2006, set aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and acquitted all the respondents-accused of the charges framed against them.

6. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for restoration of the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, (HP), Camp at Nalagarh.

7. I have heard learned counsel representing