JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.(Oral): State has filed this appeal against the judgment passed by Shri. S.L. Sharma, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chopal. By means of impugned judgment dated 71-6- 1986 in case No.245/1 of 1983, respondents have been acquitted of the case under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act lodged against them before the trial court. 2. This case was initiated by the prosecutor of Forest Department. According to the prosecution case, on 21-11-1982 PW-1 Puran Chand, Forest Guard of Lihat beat was on patrol duty and while he was in forest known as Sari Dehat, he found that 8 kali trees had been illicitly felled and 57 scants and damdamas were lying on the spot. These scants were handed over on sapurdari after the beat hammber No.8 had been affixed on these scants. On enquiry made by Block Officer, Dehat, it transpired that these trees had been got cut and scants converted there - from for the purpose of sale, In these circumstances, damage report was prepared on the spot vide Ex. PB. On the reverse of this damage report, signatures of witnesses Sant Ram and Dhani Ram at points C and B respectively were obtained. Further case of the prosecution is that the concerned accused .-who were found there on the spot refused to sign the confessional statement though they stated that they had converted the timber into scants at the instance of M/S Khajan Singh Bhupender Singh contractors. These 57 scants were handed over to sapurdar Sant Ram vide Ex.P.A.. Further case of the prosecution is the extra judicial confession was made by Het Ram but the same has not been proved on record. 3. Similarly, statements of Basti Ram and Gurdas Ram (since deceased) were recorded vide Mark A and Mark-Y respectively. Further case of the prosecution was mat on the spot respondents Het Ram and Basti Ram were found along with Gurdas Ram (since deceased). Since they refused to sign the damage report despite having admitted the guilt, as such, damage report and other papers were sent to the Block Officer and on the basis whereof this challan came to be filed against the respondents. 4. Since they refused to sign the damage report despite having admitted the guilt, as such, damage report and other papers were sent to the Block Officer and on the basis whereof this challan came to be filed against the respondents. 4. Shri M.L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the statements of PWs 1 to 3 and urged that so far illicit conversion of 57 scants is concerned, its recovery stands duly proved and with reference to the damage report Ex. PB and the sapurdarinama Ex.PA coupled with the confession statement Ex. PC, according to him the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt against the respondents. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have controverted all the submissions made on behalf of the State and has urged that so far prosecution case till the stage of recovery of 57 kail scants and Damdamas are concerned, there is hardly any dispute in that behalf However the question that remains to be seen is that who had cat the trees and who had converted those into scants as claimed by the prosecution 6. The very outset, it may be appropriate to state that so far Bhupinder Singh and Khazana Ram are concerned, there is not an iota of evidence on record to connect much less show their involvement in the commission of the offence alleged against them. It appears that they have been tm pleaded as respondents on the basis of the prosecution case that respondents Het Ram and Basti Ram along with Gurdas Ram (since deceased) had cut the trees and converted those into scants at the instance of the aforesaid persons. That being so in the face of there being no evidence to either connect or bring home the guilt against these respondents (Bhupinder Singh and Khazana Ram), no fault can be found with their acquittal and it deserves to be upheld. 7. Now remains the case of respondents Het Ram and Basti Ram. In this behalf when reference is made to independent witnesses viz PW-4 Relu Ram and PW-5 Jalam Ram, there is hardly anything in the statements of these two witnesses so as to show the-involvement of any of respondents Het Ram and Basti Ram alongwith Gurdas Ram in the commission of the offence alleged against them. In this behalf when reference is made to independent witnesses viz PW-4 Relu Ram and PW-5 Jalam Ram, there is hardly anything in the statements of these two witnesses so as to show the-involvement of any of respondents Het Ram and Basti Ram alongwith Gurdas Ram in the commission of the offence alleged against them. Now remains the statements of PWs 1 to 3 who are official witnesses in this case PW-1 is Puran Chand, Forest Guard who had taken into possession Kulhari (axe), where it evaporated is not known as such kulhari which is stated to have been recovered along with 57 scants was never produced in the court although it had been taken into possession by the PW-1 when he claimed to have recovered 57 scants as aforesaid. 8. Now another thing to be seen is with reference to the circumstances whereunder Exh PB and Ex. PC had come into existence There is no independent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to show that the damage report Ex. PB and confession statement vide Ex.PC was made by respondents No.3 and 4 along with Gurdas Ram of their free will or volition. In this behalf also the statements of PWs 4 and 5 assume significance. These witnesses had been declared hostile and were allowed to be cross- examined by the prosecution When a reference is made to their entire statements, it is clear that still prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the respondents 9. Another circumstances that has to be seen is whether there is any material which can be taken to have proved the illicit felling from the land in question which was in Sari Dehat. It was expected to have either produced a copy of notification whereby it was notified as a protected forest having been duly declared by the Government or otherwise being a Government forest Neither any notification was shown in the trial court nor any one has been referred during the course nor of arguments by Sh. M.L. Chauhan. It was expected to have either produced a copy of notification whereby it was notified as a protected forest having been duly declared by the Government or otherwise being a Government forest Neither any notification was shown in the trial court nor any one has been referred during the course nor of arguments by Sh. M.L. Chauhan. Although from the file of the trial court, an attempt was made by Shri M.L. Chauhan with reference to pages 75 to 78 the notifications dated 25 -2-1952 purported to have been issued by Sant Ram, Chief Conservator of Forests and Secretary Forest Department, Chief Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh Admn., but these could not be connected with the forest Sari Pehat where-from trees had been illicitly felled and converted into 57 scants. That being, so, on this ground also the prosecution ca-se must fail. . 10. On the basis of the materials on record produced by the prosecution. it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court is either not possible on appreciation of evidence or that it leads to only one and irresistible conclusion pointing towards the guilt of the respondents. In fact, the view taken by the trial court is balanced and reason above based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of law. Needless to point out that it is by now well settled that when on appreciation of evidence two views are possible one favourable to the accused needs to be followed as in the present case. No other infirmity could be pointed out by the learned Assistant Advocate General necessitating interference in the present appeal filed by the State. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that there is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed