Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Madan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 11 of 2012
Decided on : 01-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioner:Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajeet Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
The prosecution must produce primary evidence to sustain a conviction; non-production of seized timber undermines the case.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 379 - Indian Forest Act - Sections 41 and 42 - Revision against conviction for theft of timber - The accused was found transporting timber without a permit; however, the prosecution failed to produce the seized timber as evidence, leading to doubts about the conviction. (Paras 6, 7, 25, 26)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 397 - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - The revisional court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction and can only rectify patent defects or errors of law. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with theft of timber under IPC and the Forest Act after being found with logs in a vehicle without a permit. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimonies, but the timber was not produced in court.
Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court convicted the accused based on witness testimonies, but the Appellate Court acquitted him of theft due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of witness testimonies and the failure to produce the seized timber as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the non-production of primary evidence (the timber) undermined the conviction.
Result: Revision allowed; accused acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.10.2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 26.5.2009 and order of sentence dated 3.6.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Theog, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan against the accused before learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act (in short ‘the Forest Act’). It was asserted that HC Subhash Kumar (PW11), Constable Sunil Kumar (PW6) and Constable Sunil Kumar (PW10) were present near Harog on 11.11.2016 at about 12.30 AM. They signalled a Tempo Trax, bearing registration No. HP-09A-1175 to stop. The driver identified himself as Madan Singh (the accused). The police found logs of deodar loaded in the Trax. The police called Pradhan Amar Singh (PW7) and searched the vehicle in his presence. 20 logs of different sizes were found. The accused could not produce any permit to transport the timber. The police seized the timber on the spot along with the vehicle and the documents vide memo (Ex.PW6/A). HC Subhash Kumar prepared a rukka (Ex.PW11/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW9/A) was registered. HC Subhash Kumar conducted the investigation on the spot. He prepared a site plan (Ex.PW11/B). B.O. Sant Ram (PW1) also reached the spot. The vehicle was brought to the Police Station, where timber was measured. The detail of the measurement (Ex.PW1/A) was prepared. The accused led the police to the place from where the trees were cut. 12 trees were found to have been recently cut. Sant Ram (PW1) identified the place as part of U-138 Jahoo Beat. The site plan (Ex.PW11/C) was prepared. The timber was handed over on Sapurdari to Kishori Lal (PW4) vide memo (Ex.PW3/A). The Forest Department put the seizure hammer on the seized timber. Its impression was obtained on the memo (Ex.P1/A). The statements of remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the Court.
3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 42 of the Forest Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. Sant Ram (PW1) reached the spot after he was informed of the seizure of the timber. Mahinder Singh (PW2) is the owner of the vehicle. Surjit Singh (PW3) is the witness to Sapurdari. Kishori Lal (PW4) was posted as Forest Guard to whom the timber was handed over on Sapurdari. Meena (PW5) proved the entry in the daily diary. Sunil Kumar (PW6) and Sunil Kumar (PW10) were the members of the police party in whose presence the vehicle was stopped and checked. Amar Singh (PW7) was called to the spot as an independent person. Rajinder (PW8) measured the timber. ASI Ramesh Thakur (PW9) signed the FIR. HC Subhash Kumar (PW11) effected the recovery and conducted the investigation.
5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. admitted that his signatures were obtained in the documents. He denied the rest of the prosecution's case. He examined Daulat Ram (DW1) in defence.
6. Learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of the police ofÏcials corroborated each other. Independent witness Amar Singh (PW7) also supported the prosecution's case. The statement of Daulat Ram (DW1) was not reliable. The accused had failed to produce any permit as required under Rule 11 of the HP Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978 (Tra
