Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Chain Singh – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 269 of 2013

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajit Sharma
For the Respondents: N.S. Chandel, Sidharth, Shwetima Dogra

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 witnesses or where testimony is contradictory, thereby strengthening the accused's presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 41 and 42 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 181 - Appeal against acquittal - Alleged illegal transport of Khair wood - Failure to join independent witnesses despite prior information - Absence of accused signatures on seizure memos - Prosecution witnesses supporting defence case regarding location of recovery - Trial Court view held reasonable and not perverse. (Paras 7, 22-25)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Appeal against acquittal - High Court intervention limited to cases of patent perversity, misreading of material evidence, or manifest miscarriage of justice - If two reasonable views are possible, trial court's acquittal must be upheld - Principle of 'double presumption of innocence' reiterated. (Paras 14-16, 19)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that on 13.02.2005, police intercepted a truck transporting Khair wood without valid permits. The respondents were charged under the Indian Forest Act and Motor Vehicles Act. The trial court acquitted the accused due to failure to join independent witnesses and doubts regarding the recovery procedure, including the lack of signatures on seizure memos. The State appealed against this acquittal.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that two prosecution witnesses testified that the wood was stacked by a contractor at a bridge and not found in the truck, supporting the defence. The failure of the police to join independent witnesses despite having five hours of prior information was a critical flaw. The trial court's acquittal was based on a reasonable view and appreciation of evidence, precluding appellate interference.

Issues: Whether the trial court's order of acquittal was perverse and required interference by the appellate court given the evidence on record.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court must not disturb an acquittal if the trial court’s findings are reasonable and supported by evidence; specifically, when independent witness testimony is missing despite opportunity, and prosecution witnesses inadvertently support the defence version, the doubt must favor the accused.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.03.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forests Act. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challanH before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act). It was asserted that the police received secret information on 13.02.2005 that a truck bearing registration No. HP-54-2257 was transporting Khair wood from Bhadukhar Hatli. An entry No. 6 (Ext.PW-15/A) was recorded in the Police Station, ASI Prem Chand (PW-15), ASI Amreek Singh (PW-10), and Constable Bir Chhand were sent towards Hatli in a vehicle bearing registration gNo. HP-7A-2353 being driven by Onkar Chand. A truck bearing iregistration No. HP-54-2257 reached the spot after some time. The police signalled the driver to stop the truck. The driver identified himself as Chain Singh (accused No.1), and the person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Balbir Singh (accused No.2). The police checked the truck and found Khair logs of different sizes in it. The police asked them for a permit to transport the Khair logs, but they could not produce any permit. The police seized the truck vide memo (Ext.PW-10/A). Prem Singh prepared a Rukka (Ext.PW-15/B) and handed it over to LHC Bir Singh with a direction to take it to the Police Station for the registration of the F.I.R. An F.I.R. (Ext.PW-15/C) was registered in the Police Station. Prem Singh investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-15/Df). Punjab Singh (PW-1) measured the Khair wood and found its volume to be 1.74 cubic meters. He prepared the dettails (Ext.PW-1/A). The Khair wood was handed over on Sapurdari to the forest officials vide memo (Ext.PW-1/B). Another list (Ext.PW-5/A) of the Khair wood was prepared. The documents of the vehicles were seized vide memo (Ext.PW-10/B). Shashi Pal (PW-9) took the photographs (Ext.PW-9/A-1 to Ext.PW-9/A-5) whose negatives are Ext.PW-9/A-6 to Ext.PW-9/A-7. Accused Chain Singh could not produce his driving license. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version. It was found during the investigation that Kashmir Singh had taken the contract of removing the Khair wood in Jungle Ghandra vide Lot No. 103/04-05, and this Khair wood was being transported without any documents. Hence, the charge-sheet was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court after the completion of the investigation.

Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forests Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove its case.

Punjab Singh (PW-1) and Balwant Singh (PW-5) were present during the measurement of the timber.

Sushil Kalia (PW-2) witnessed the recovery.

Karnail Singh (PW-3) and Hansraj (PW-4) had sold the Khair trees to Kashmir Singh.

Surinder Kumar Sharma (PW-6) proved the procedure for the disposal of the dry Khair trees.

Gorakh Singh (PW-7) deposed about the logs ahnd wood of the Khair tree.

Raghubir Dass (PW-8) proved that the work was allotted to Laxman Singh and no illicit felling was idetected.

Shashi Pal (PW-9) took the photographs.

ASI Amreek Singh (PW-10) was a member of the police party who had effected the recovery.

Dy.S.P. Partap Singh (PW-11) had prepared the challan.

S.I. Tara Singh (PW-12) recorded the sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, JState of H.P. – AppellantVersusChain Singh – RespondentCr. Appeal No. 269 of 2013

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Chain Singh – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 269 of 2013