Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 173 (HP)

Dhanna Ram v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2002-06-24

M.R.VERMA

body2002
JUDGMENT : M.R. Verma, J. – 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 28.12.1989 passed by the learned Special Judge, Shimla whereby he held the accused including one Chattar Singh (since deceased) guilty of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 167, 218, 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 33 of the Indian Forrest Act and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accordingly convicted accused "Dhanna Ram in respect of offences punishable under Sections 120B and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act." Accused Gairu Ram, Nathu Ram, Partap Singh and Chattar Singh deceased were convicted "of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 167, 218 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act." The accused and the deceased, however, were acquitted of the heads of charge under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code." One Om Parkash, who was also a co-accused before the trial Court, was acquitted. The learned Special Judge while awarding sentences to the accused persons did not deem it necessary "to pass separate sentence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code" in view of the sentences of imprisonment and fine passed under the substantive penal provisions against the accused persons as follows : Sr. No. Name of appellant Penal provisions under which sentence passed. Sentence imposed. 1. Dhannar Ram 379 Indian Penal Code 33 of Indian Forest Act Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of six months. Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 3 months. 2. Chattar Singh (since deceased) 167 Indian Penal Code -do- 218 Indian Penal Code 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act Imprisonment for one year. Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000 in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for 6 months. 3. Nathu Ram -do- -do- 4. Partap Singh -do- -do- 5. Gairu Ram -do- -do- 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Sukh Ram (PW-11) owned land comprising Khasra Nos. 20, 21, 18, 32, 40 and 52 situate in village Khagna, Tehsil Chopal. 1000 in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for 6 months. 3. Nathu Ram -do- -do- 4. Partap Singh -do- -do- 5. Gairu Ram -do- -do- 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Sukh Ram (PW-11) owned land comprising Khasra Nos. 20, 21, 18, 32, 40 and 52 situate in village Khagna, Tehsil Chopal. He entered into an agreement to sell the trees standing on the said land to accused Dhanna Ram. Before the standing trees could be sold by PW-11 to accused Dhanna Ram, the land was required to be demarcated and the trees found on the said land and agreed to be sold, were required to be marked by the Forest Officials, therefore, an application for demarcation of the land was moved by PW-11 before the Tehsildar, Chopal. He moved another application to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal for marking of the trees after the demarcation of the land was done by the Revenue Officials. The application for demarcation was entrusted, by the Tehsildar to accused Gairu Ram, the then Field Kanoongo, Chopal who carried out the demarcation of the said land in the presence of the Forest Officials, namely, Chattar Singh (deceased) the then Assistant Conservator of Forest, Chopal, accused Nathu Ram, the then Block Forest Officer, accused Partap Singh, the then Forest Guard, accused Dhanna Ram and PW-11. Fifty trees of 'Deodar' and 'Kail' were marked by Chattar Singh (deceased) after the demarcation with his hammer No. HP-1122. Marking lists were prepared and certificates were appended thereto by the accused persons other than Dhanna Ram to the effect that none of the marked trees was on the Government land adjoining the land of PW-11 and deceased Chattar Singh recommended the case of the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal to issue felling orders of the aforesaid trees in favour of Sukh Ram which were accordingly issued on 31.8.1980. One letter was also addressed by deceased Chattar Singh to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal stating that demarcation of land comprising Khasra No. 52 was done on 29.8.1980 and seventeen trees were further marked as a consequence of such demarcation. The marking list along with the certificate that no tree was marked on the Government land, was prepared by deceased Chattar Singh who recommended issue of felling orders regarding these seventeen trees as well which were issued on 30.9.1980. The marking list along with the certificate that no tree was marked on the Government land, was prepared by deceased Chattar Singh who recommended issue of felling orders regarding these seventeen trees as well which were issued on 30.9.1980. After such felling orders were issued, accused Dhanna Ram and his son Om Parkash (who was also an accused before the trial Court, but was acquitted) felled the marked trees and converted them into scants. After conversion of timber, launching lists were prepared by accused Dhanna Ram which were verified by the accused persons other than Dhanna Ram and deceased Chattar Singh and it was also certified that no trees had been felled from the Government land. On the basis of such launching lists/certificates, export permits were issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal in favour of accused Manna Ram who as a consequence exported the converted timber. 3. On receipt of a secret information that accused Dhanna Ram felled trees from the Government land adjoining the land of Sukh Ram, an enquiry was undertaken by Ram Swarup, S.I. (PW-34) who got the said land demarcated through Chander Mani (PW-2), the then Naib Tehsildar, Chopal. As per the demarcation by Chander Mani, 12 trees were found to have been felled from the Government land and the stumps of such trees bore marks of hammer No. 1122. As a result of the enquiry, a case was registered at Police Station Enforcement South Zone, Shimla and the investigation followed. During investigation, the said land was again demarcated by PW-2 and then by Shri Babu Ram (PW-3), the then Tehsildar Chopal. As per the demarcation given by PW-3, eleven trees were found felled from the Government land instead of twelve trees as found by PW-2. The investigation revealed that accused Dhanna Ram, Gairu Ram, Partap Singh, Nathu Ram and deceased Chattar Singh entered into a conspiracy with the object of causing wrongful loss to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and wrongful gain to accused Dhanna Ram and accused Gairu Ram, Partap Singh, Nathu Ram and deceased Chattar Singh being public officials whose duty was to protect the Government property, omitted to do so with a view to have unlawful gain. The records of the Revenue and Forest Departments were taken in possession by the Investigating Officer. 4. The records of the Revenue and Forest Departments were taken in possession by the Investigating Officer. 4. Being satisfied of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 167, 218, 379, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the accused persons; Om Parkash and deceased Chattar Singh, the investigating agency obtained sanctions for prosecution of those accused persons who were Government servants and after requisite sanctions were accorded, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, deceased Chatter Singh and Om Parkash. A charge under Sections 468, 468/471, 218/167 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed against accused Gairu Ram, Partap Singh, Nathu Ram and Chattar Singh deceased and another charge under Section 120-B read with Sections 379, 468, 471, 218, 167 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5 (1)(d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed against all the accused persons, Om Parkash and deceased Chattar Singh. 5. To prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses. In defence Basant Singh (DW-1), Devinder Singh (DW-2) and D.S. Negi (DW-3) were examined by accused Gairu Ram. 6. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Special Judge found Om Parkash not guilty and accordingly acquitted him whereas the accused persons and deceased Chattar Singh were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the accused persons. 7. It may be pointed out here that this appeal was earlier disposed of by a single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 7.4.1997 but has been remitted to this Court by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for decision afresh vide its judgment dated 9.11.2000 rendered in a bunch of Criminal Appeal Nos. 784-786, 1017, 333, 711 to 713 of 1997. 8. I had heard the learned Counsel for the accused persons and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent-State and have also gone through the record. 9. 784-786, 1017, 333, 711 to 713 of 1997. 8. I had heard the learned Counsel for the accused persons and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent-State and have also gone through the record. 9. It may also be pointed out here that the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of Om Parkash who was one of the accused before the trial Court and one of the head of charge against whom was under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the acquittal of Om Parkash has become final. 10. The foundation of the case against the accused persons is the offence of conspiracy. When two or more persons agree to do something contrary to law or to use unlawful means in carrying out an object not otherwise lawful, such persons who so agree, commit the crime of conspiracy. There should be prima facie evidence to establish concert and connection between the persons charged with the commission of offence of conspiracy. As soon as it is proved that the accused was privy to the conspiracy, everything done by each of his co-conspirator must also be imputed to him as part conspiracy if it was done to carry out their general purpose. This is so because of Section 10 of the ........................ n.p........... Indian Evidence Act. There is no difference between the mode of proof of conspiracy and, that of any other offence, therefore, conspiracy can be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. Ordinarily, conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, thus, it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence thereof. Therefore, generality it is on the basis of circumstantial evidence that conspiracy has to be proved and established and for that purpose inference can be drawn from the circumstances appearing against the accused. However, when prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence to prove criminal conspiracy, it is necessary to establish the circumstances so as to lead to the only conclusion of such conspiracy ruling out any likelihood of innocence of the accused. 11. In Kehar Singh and others v. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1883 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows : "Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. 11. In Kehar Singh and others v. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1883 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows : "Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirations, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The expression agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient......... 12. In Yash Pal Mital v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2433, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows : "..........The very agreement concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-participators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or over-shotting by some of the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or over-shotting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy............." 13. In Hari Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1982 Cri.L.J. 294, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows : "12..........The gist of this offence is, therefore, the agreement. Direct proof of the conspiracy is of course seldom available. In a case of conspiracy when there is no direct evidence as in the instant case, inferences from the proved facts and circumstances to a large extent form the basis of the Court's conclusion. In dealing with such cases based on circumstantial evidence, however, an inference of guilty need only be drawn when the circumstances are such as to be incapable of being reasonably explained on another hypothesis than the guilty of the accused .........." 14. It is against the aforesaid factual and legal aspects that this case is required to be examined. 15. In dealing with such cases based on circumstantial evidence, however, an inference of guilty need only be drawn when the circumstances are such as to be incapable of being reasonably explained on another hypothesis than the guilty of the accused .........." 14. It is against the aforesaid factual and legal aspects that this case is required to be examined. 15. To establish the charge of conspiracy against the accused persons, the prosecution relied on and the learned Special Judge in convicting the accused persons, believed the following circumstances : (i) That accused Gairu Ram, Field Kanoongo had wrongly demarcated the land of Sukh Ram (PW-11) so as to show that some timber which were in fact standing on the Government land, were standing on the land of Sukh Ram; (ii) That accused persons Chattar Singh (since deceased), Nathu Ram, Partap Singh, Forest Officials, and Gairu Ram, Field Kanoongo prepared incorrect marking lists of trees standing on the land of Sukh Ram by including therein eleven timber trees marked on the Government land and certified that such lists did not include any tree on the Government land; (iii) That on the basis of the incorrect marking lists and false certificate as aforesaid, felling orders were issued in the name of Sukh Ram and the trees were felled by accused Dhanna Ram; and (iv) That after the felling of the trees accused Chattar Singh, Nathu Ram and Pratap Singh certified that no felling had been done on the Government land and the timber proposed to be exported by Dhanna Ram did not include any illicit timber, export permits were issued in favour of Dhanna Ram, whereas the timber sought to be exported and actually exported included the timber extracted from eleven trees standing on the Government land. Circumstance No. 1 16. It is not in dispute that on the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Chopal on application Ex. PW-11/A, the land comprising Khasra Nos. 32, 21, 20 and 40 situate in Chak Khagna and owned by Sukh Ram (PW-11) was demarcated by accused Gairu Ram. Case of the prosecution is that accused Gairu Ram deliberately and intentionally carried out the demarcation wrongly pursuant to a conspiracy between the accused persons. The accused have denied that the demarcation was wrongly carried out pursuant to the alleged conspiracy. Case of the prosecution is that accused Gairu Ram deliberately and intentionally carried out the demarcation wrongly pursuant to a conspiracy between the accused persons. The accused have denied that the demarcation was wrongly carried out pursuant to the alleged conspiracy. To prove its version, the prosecution relied on the statements of Chander Mani (PW-2), Babu Ram (PW-3) and Roop Singh (PW-10). 17. PW-2 who was Naib Tehsildar at the material time, had demarcated the land in question twice. His report about first demarcation carried out from 23rd to 26th November, 1983 is Ex.PA and the report prepared by him about second demarcation carried out on 29th and 30th June, 1984 is Ex.PB. The first demarcation was carried out by him on the basis of Nakal Aks Momi and the second on the basis of an attested copy of Aks Musabi furnished by the Vigilance Department. The report Ex.PA is a cryptic report which does not indicate the manner of carrying out the demarcation and simply states that demarcation was carried out as per the copy of Aks Momi and gives khasrawise details of the stumps found within the khasra numbers owned by private owners. As per the contents of Ex.PA and statement of PW-2, in all 57 stumps were found in the land khasra Nos. 20, 32, 40 and 52 owned by Sukh Ram. 18. As per his second report Ex.PB, 52 stumps were found on the land comprising khasra Nos. 613/1, 25/1, 13, 3/3, 3/1 and 3/2 owned by the State Government and 20 stumps were found on undemarcated Government forest. However, at the time of second demarcation, khasra Nos. 20, 32, 40 and 21 owned by Sukh Ram, the trees standing whereon were also sold by him to accused Dhanna Ram were not demarcated. It is not the case of the prosecution that 72 stumps found on the Government land at the time of second demarcation are the stumps of the trees felled by accused Dhanna Ram pursuant to the alleged conspiracy. It was necessary to demarcate the land owned by Sukh Ram and the Government land simultaneously to ensure proper demarcation, but PW-2 not only failed to do so but also failed to carry out the demarcation as per the standing instructions contained in Chapter I-M of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders (Vol. I) as applicable to H.P. 19. It was necessary to demarcate the land owned by Sukh Ram and the Government land simultaneously to ensure proper demarcation, but PW-2 not only failed to do so but also failed to carry out the demarcation as per the standing instructions contained in Chapter I-M of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders (Vol. I) as applicable to H.P. 19. Even the investigating agency was satisfied that these demarcations by PW-2 were not proper, therefore, Sub Inspector Ram Swaroop (PW-34) moved application Ex. PW-34/B. I had moved this application because earlier demarcation had not been done according to procedure." This application was admittedly presented to the Collector, Sub-Division, Chopal on 30.4.1985. Thus, the investigating agency, on being satisfied that the earlier demarcations by PW-2 were not proper had moved this application. Such a satisfaction of the investigating agency was not unfounded and unreasonable. In fact, the demarcations by PW-2 were not carried out as per the procedure as already stated hereinabove. As a result, no reliance whatsoever can be placed on demarcation reports Exs. PA and PB and the statement of PW-2 who is the author of these reports. 20. PW-3 after demarcating land khasra Nos. 20, 21, 32, 40 and 52 owned by Sukhia Ram and khasra Nos. 3 and 31 owned by the State Government in the presence of the accused persons other than Chattar Singh and other police, revenue and forest officials prepared the report Ex.P-38. In this report, he has mentioned that none had raised any objection regarding demarcation by him and so is stated by him in his statement. He has, further stated that minute details of the demarcations were prepared by PW-10 and are contained in Ex. P-26 which may be read as part of his report. The witness has admitted that he demarcated the land comprising Khasra Nos. 18, 20, 21, 32, 40 and 52 owned by Sukhia Ram and adjoining Government land comprising khasra Nos. 3 and 31 as prayed for vide application Ex. PW-34/B. However, as per the demarcation report Ex. P-38 and its annexure Ex. P-26 only khasra Nos. 20, 21, 32, 40 and 52 owned by Sukhia Ram and part of Khasra Nos. 3 and 31 specified as Khasra Nos. 3/1 and 31/1 were demarcated, meaning thereby that neither land khasra No. 18 was demarcated nor khasra Nos. 3 and 31 were demarcated as a whole. P-38 and its annexure Ex. P-26 only khasra Nos. 20, 21, 32, 40 and 52 owned by Sukhia Ram and part of Khasra Nos. 3 and 31 specified as Khasra Nos. 3/1 and 31/1 were demarcated, meaning thereby that neither land khasra No. 18 was demarcated nor khasra Nos. 3 and 31 were demarcated as a whole. It is also stated by PW-3 that the file of the demarcations carried out by accused Gairu Ram was also made available to him but he did not take into account the copy of Musabi Ex. P-40 on the basis of which Gairu Ram had demarcated the land but gave the demarcation as per the copy of Musabi Ex. P-25 made available to him by the Vigilance Department. He has clearly and unambiguously admitted that in Musabi Ex. P-25 and Ex. P-40 some difference of Karukans of khasra Nos. 20, 21, 40 and 52 were noticed. 21. PW-10 has corroborated the statement of PW-3 on material particulars and has stated that specific details of demarcation given under the supervision of PW-3 were prepared by him and is Ex. P-26. He has also admitted that Musabis Exs. P-40 and P-25 did not coincide. 22. To appreciate the above prosecution evidence, it is necessary to refer to the circumstances under which accused Gairu Ram carried out the disputed demarcation. It is evident from the evidence led by the prosecution that application Ex. PW-11/A was presented to the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Chopal. It was pursuant to the orders passed by him that accused Gairu Ram conducted the demarcation as per the papers including Musabi Ex. P-40 attached to the said application. It is, thus, clear that accused Gairu Ram did not fabricate the documents on the basis of which he carried out the demarcation. Accused Gairu Ram admittedly demarcated the land and the marking lists were prepared by Chattar Singh in the presence of Sukh Ram, the owner who admittedly sold the trees standing on his land to accused Dhanna Ram, Sukh Ram being owner must be aware of the boundaries of his land. But he did not raise any objection to such demarcation and lists. He was to get the price for each tree marked for felling at the time of demarcation of his land. But he did not raise any objection to such demarcation and lists. He was to get the price for each tree marked for felling at the time of demarcation of his land. However, despite being beneficiary under such demarcation and lists, he is not accused of any conspiracy though he had no objection about the demarcation and marking lists. It implies that the demarcation was carried out and marking lists were prepared to his satisfaction. Thus, it can be inferred that the demarcation was not wrong, otherwise being owner of the demarcated land, Sukh Ram could point out the lapse if any committed in carrying out the demarcation. 23. Accused Gairu Ram can be said to have acted as a co-conspirator if he had manipulated the records on the basis of which demarcation was given by him or had ignored the record made available to him though superior authority to carry out the demarcation. It cannot be disputed that demarcation is carried out on the basis of Musabi which specifies the boundaries and karukans of the land to be measured. Accused Gairu Ram carried out the demarcation on the basis of Musabi Ex. P-40 forming part of the application file. This Ex. P-40 is an attested copy of Musabi issued from the office of Collector, Shimla. If any, mala fide lapse in carrying out the demarcation on the basis of Ex. P-40 is to be detected, it could be done only if the redemarcation was done on the basis of Musabi Ex. P-40 or a copy of Musabi which in all respects is identical to it. Neither PW-2 nor PW-3 carried out the respective demarcations on the basis or with the help of Ex. P-40. It is admitted by PW-3 that demarcation was carried out by him on the basis of Musabi Ex. P-25 and on looking into the file containing Ex. P-40, found that these Musabis have some difference of Karukan of Khasra Nos. 20, 21, 40 and 52 which formed more than th of the land to be demarcated. 24. It may also be noticed that Ex. P-40 and Ex. P-25 are both attested copies of the Musabi issued by the Government Agency. There is nothing on the record to show as to which.one of these two copies is actually true copy of the original. 24. It may also be noticed that Ex. P-40 and Ex. P-25 are both attested copies of the Musabi issued by the Government Agency. There is nothing on the record to show as to which.one of these two copies is actually true copy of the original. It is only on the basis of the copy of Musabi which is true according to the original, that a correct demarcation could have been given. In any case, there was no reason for accused Gairu Ram to suspect the authenticity of Ex. P-40 which was attested and issued by the Government Agency, more so when it is not the case of the prosecution that the official attesting and issuing Musabi Ex. P-40 is also one of the co-conspirators. The fact, thus remains that demarcations given on the basis of two Musabi having different Karukans will lead to two different results and being based on certified record, neither of the demarcation can be said to be mala fide and wrongly carried out. 25. It may also be noticed here that statement of PW-3 that none had raised any objection against the demarcation given by him is not true as a whole. Ext. P-30 admittedly is the statement of accused Gairu Ram recorded at the time of demarcation by PW-3 and therein accused Gairu Ram has specifically stated that the demarcation given by PW-3 was not acceptable, to him because he had given the disputed demarcation on the basis of a certified copy of Musabi and the demarcation had been carried out by PW-3 on the basis of another Musabi furnished by Enforcement Department and there was difference in the Karukans of the Khasras in the said Musabi. Thus accused Gairu Ram had objected to the demarcation by PW-3 and his objection cannot be termed as unfounded and meritless inasmuch as his demarcation on the basis of Ext. P-40 could not be held wrong on the outcome of demarcation based on Ext. P-25 which differed from Ext. P-40 in respect of Karukans. 26. There is no dispute that the demarcations given by PW-2 and PW-3 also did not lead to the same results. It implies that correctness of demarcation given by PW-3 is also not beyond reasonable doubts. 27. There is no other evidence whatsoever to show that demarcation given by accused Gairu Ram as per the Musabi Ext. 26. There is no dispute that the demarcations given by PW-2 and PW-3 also did not lead to the same results. It implies that correctness of demarcation given by PW-3 is also not beyond reasonable doubts. 27. There is no other evidence whatsoever to show that demarcation given by accused Gairu Ram as per the Musabi Ext. P-40 sent to him for the purpose by his superior officer was carried out by him wrongly in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy. On the contrary the difference in the outcome of the demarcations evidently is because of difference in the Karukans of Musabi Exts. P-40 and P-25. 28. In view of the above discussion and conclusions inference of conspiracy cannot be drawn from this circumstance. Circumstance Nos. (II) to (IV) : 29. There circumstances are based on acts done by the accused persons on the basis of the demarcation carried out by accused Gairu Ram. Since such demarcation is not proved to be mala fide and pursuant to the alleged conspiracy, the acts done on the basis of such demarcation cannot be said acts done pursuant to conspiracy. Hence even on the basis of these circumstances inference of conspiracy is not permissible. 30. Thus, there is no evidence whatsoever to even infer that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution. All other heads of charges against the accused are based on the alleged acts in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy. Therefore, none of such heads of charges can be held as proved for want of proof of criminal conspiracy. 31. It may also be pointed out that the learned trial Judge appears to have recorded the judgment of conviction against the accused persons on the misconception that some of them have not proved their innocence. Regarding accused Chattar Singh (deceased), the learned trial Judge has observed that the accused has failed to show that hammer No. "HP-1122" did not belong to him and the stumps of 11 trees, which were found cut and felled on the Government land, did not have marks of his hammer. Regarding accused Chattar Singh (deceased), the learned trial Judge has observed that the accused has failed to show that hammer No. "HP-1122" did not belong to him and the stumps of 11 trees, which were found cut and felled on the Government land, did not have marks of his hammer. About accused Gairu Ram, the learned trial Judge has observed that the said accused has neither taken up the plea that the demarcation, which was done by him, was wrong because of error of judgment or on account of bonafide mistake nor he has led the evidence to show that his demarcation is correct and the one done by Babu Ram (PW-3) is wrong. At another stage of the judgment, the learned Judge observed that the demarcation, which was done by Babu Ram, was perfectly in order and accused Gairu Ram has failed to show that the demarcation done by Babu Ram was wrong and the one which was done by him was correct, therefore, the demarcation which was done by Gairu Ram was wrong. 32. It is well settled that it is for the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty of the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by him and it is not for the accused to prove his innocence. The cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence is that a person accused of the commission of an offence is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty. If on the basis of the material on record there is any doubt about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. If two views are possible on the basis of the material on record then the one favourable to the accused has to be accepted. The learned trial Judge appears to have lost sight of these principles while deciding the case against the accused persons. 33. As already concluded hereinabove, the demarcation was given by accused Gairu Ram on the basis of the Musabi and other material made available to him by the authority directing him to carry out the demarcation. There is not even an iota of evidence on the record to show that the demarcation given by accused Gairu Ram as per the record made available to him was wrong. There is not even an iota of evidence on the record to show that the demarcation given by accused Gairu Ram as per the record made available to him was wrong. His demarcation is sought to be proved wrong on the basis of the documents which materially differ from the documents on the basis of which he had given the demarcation. The other acts attributed to the accused persons had been performed by them on the basis of the demarcation given by accused Gairu Ram. Therefore, in the given circumstances of the case, the accused could not have been held guilty and could not be convicted and sentenced. 34. As a result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned conviction and sentences imposed upon the accused/appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges against them. Fine, if recovered, be refunded to the concerned accused/appellants.