IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Sh. Barkat Ali Son Of Sh. Imam Hussain - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 25 OF 2013
Decided On : 30-09-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 379 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Indian Forest Act - Sections 41 and 42 - Punishment for theft - Petitioner was charged for commission of offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act. The allegation against petitioner was that he was illicitly transporting fourteen sleepers of Deodar wood without valid pass or permits and was apprehended at Forest Check Post - Needless to say that prosecution carries a heavy burden to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. (Para 18).
Findings of the Court: In cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, it was suggested on behalf of the petitioner that the vehicle was lying abandoned near the Forest Check Post and case was planted. In view of such defence, it was all more important for prosecution to have produced Investigating Officer for answering material questions. Thus, an adverse inference for non-examination of Investigating Officer ought to have been drawn against the prosecution - Needless to say that the prosecution carries a heavy burden to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is the duty of the prosecution and especially of the I.O. of the case to satisfy the conscience of the Court by negating the chances of suspicion arising in the facts of case. In the instant case, prosecution had failed to discharge requisite burden.
Result:
ORDER :
By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 16.11.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2012 (27 of 11) whereby the judgment and sentence passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul & Spiti, Camp at Kullu on 01.04.2011 in case No. 193-I/2006 was affirmed.
2. The petitioner was charged for commission of offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 19.05.2006 he was illicitly transporting fourteen sleepers of Deodar wood without valid pass or permit and was apprehended at Forest Check Post, Larji at about 4.00 A.M. PW-3 Bansi Ram was posted as Block Officer (for short ‘BO’) at Forest Check Post, Larji. He had informed the Divisional Forest Officer (for short ‘DFO’), Banjar, who further informed the police. An investigating team of police reached the spot. The vehicle bearing No. HP-02-0694 alongwith timber was seized vide memo Ext.PW-2/A. The timber was handed over to PW-3 Bansi Ram on sapurdari vide document Ext.PW-2/B. Rukka Ext. PW-5/A was prepared by HC Hari Ram and was sent to Police Station for registration of FIR through PW-1 C. Guddu Ram. FIR Ext. PW-5/B was registered. PW-3 prepared the assessment report of the value of seized timber vide Ext. PW-3/A. The petitioner was arrested and later released on bail. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
3. Prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case. PW-2 Lal Singh, Chowkidar and PW-4 Tikam Ram, Timber Watcher, were the persons who were on duty at Forest Check Post, Larji on the relevant day and had allegedly apprehended vehicle No. HP-02-0694 driven by petitioner at 4.00 A.M. and had found the illicit timber being transported in the said vehicle. PW-3 Bansi Ram was the B.O. posted at Forest Check Post, Larji. He informed the DFO, Banjar and had also valued the timber seized from the petitioner. PW-1 C. Guddu Ram had visited the spot alongwith HC Hari Singh to investigate the matter. PW-5 ASI Chaman Lal proved the receipt of rukka and registration of FIR.
4. Petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not choose to lead defence evidence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul & Spiti, Camp at Kullu acquitted the petitioner for offence under Section 379 IPC, but convicted him for commission of offence under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
5. Petitioner assailed the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court before learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, but remained unsuccessful. Learned Appellate Court affirmed the findings and sentence returned and imposed by the learned trial Court. State did not assail the acquittal of petitioner under Section 379 IPC.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
7. As per the case of prosecution, the petitioner was illicitly transporting 14 sleepers of Deodar wood in Maruti Van No. HP-02-0694 and was apprehended on 19.05.2006 at about 4.00 A.M. by the officials of Forest Check Post, Larji. PW-3 Bansi Ram was the B.O. posted at Forest Check Post, Larji on 19.05.2006. He was examined as PW-3. It was stated by this witness that on 19.05.2006 at about 4.00 A.M. the vehicle No. HP-02-0694 came from the Banjar side. Chowkidar stopped the vehicle and checked the same. 14 illicit scants of Deodar were found. He informed the DFO, Banjar. The petitioner was the driver of the vehicle and could not produce any pass or permit. The DFO later informed the police. Investigating team of the police reached the spot. Timber was measured. Police seized the timber and handed over the same to DFO, Banjar. PW-3 on the same day evaluated the timber at Rs.24,610/- vide his report E
SupremeToday
It is the duty of the prosecution and especially of I.O. of the case to satisfy the conscience of the Court by negating the chances of suspicion arising in the facts of case.
Point of law: Re-appreciation of evidence - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - In any case it is well settled that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Court does not extend to re-apprec....
The court upheld the conviction under the Indian Forest Act while highlighting the need for strict enforcement of forest protection laws, but reduced the sentence to account for the appellants' perso....
Insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of the accused in a conviction for serious offenses.
In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court will not interfere if the trial court has taken a reasonable view based on evidence, especially where the prosecution fails to provide independent witne....
Transporting timber without a valid permit violates the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act and Timber Transit Rules.
The prosecution must prove ownership and legality of possession of forest produce; failure to do so results in acquittal.
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.