Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 96 (HP)

STATE OF HP v. RAM LUBHAYA

2002-04-09

M.R.VERMA

body2002
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. - Being aggrieved, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 7.5.1997 passed by the learned Sub Divisional judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, whereby the respondents -accused (hereafter referred to as the respondents) have been acquitted of the accusations under sections 11 read with section 12 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the night intervening 12/13 June, 3991, S.S. Parmar, (pw-1) Range Officer, Indora, alongwith some forest and police officials, was present near village Haler. At about A A.M. on 13.6.1991, two trucks bearing Nos. PUG-9057 and PAT 5065 were seen proceeding from Haler to Punjab. The trucks were stopped and it was found that the trucks were loaded with mango wood. One Surjeet Singh was the driver of truck PUG-9057 and respondent No. 1 Ram Lubhaya was driver of truck No PAT-5065. One Raj Kumar and respondent No. 2 were the conductors of the said trucks respectively. On asking, the drivers could not produce the export permit. Therefore, they were asked to drive the vehicles towards Thakurdwara . Since the road was very rough and narrow and the steering of truck PUG-9057 which was ahead of the other truck failed., therefore, the trucks could not move further. Pw-1 made an application to S.H.O. Police Station, Indora on 11.6.1991 at about 8 P.M. on basis of which FIR No. 251 of 1991 was recorded against respondents, Surjeet Singh and Raj Kumar. During investigation, the trucks were seized vide memo Ex.pW-1/B and the wood loaded therein was given on spurdari to Pw-1 vide memo Ex.PW-1/C. The documents pertaining to the trucks were also taken into possession and statements of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the officer incharge of the concerned police station against the respondents, Surjeet Singh and Raj Kumar 3. At the trial, presence of Surjeet Singh and Raj Kumar could not be secured, therefore, they were declared proclaimed offenders. The respondents were tried on the accusations under sections 11/12 of the Indian Forest Act. To prove the accusations against them, prosecution examined four witnesses. Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded, wherein they denied the prosecution case. The respondents were tried on the accusations under sections 11/12 of the Indian Forest Act. To prove the accusations against them, prosecution examined four witnesses. Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded, wherein they denied the prosecution case. Respondent Ram Lubhaya further claimed that he was carrying bricks in his truck and a Range Officer and the police officials met him and they asked him to carry some wood to Bhadrwna. On refusal to oblige, he was falsely implicated in the case. The respondents, however, did not lead any defence evidence. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the records. 5. S.S. Parmar, Ranger (Pw-1). Raj Kumar (Pw-2-) and Prem Raj, H.C. (Pw-4) have been examined by the prosecution as the eye witnesses of the detection of the offence. In their examination-in- . chief, they have, by and large, supported the prosecution evidence, but their statement are not devoid of blemishes and major contradictions, ; rendering them unreliable and untrustworthy. 6. According to pw-1, the trucks in question, after having been found carrying mango wood without permit, were required to be driven to Thakurdwara.. However, the trucks could not proceed ahead from Sarmana because of the bad condition of the road and one of the trucks which was ahead, developed mechanical defect i.e. failure of steering. Therefore, the accused were taken to police post, Basantpur. The report ex. pw-1/A about the occurrence was lodged on 11.6.1991 at Indora. He has further stated that the trucks were taken in possession by the police and the wood was given to him on spurdari, regarding which a memo was prepared. However, he is not aware as to who had signed such memo of suprdari. At one stage, he has stated that the recovery memo Ex. Pw-1/B does not bear his signatures and then claimed that it is signed by him. However, in cross-examination, he had stated that the memo Ex.pw-1/B does not bear his signatures and he is not aware as to where and on which date, this document was prepared. According to him, the trucks were taken in possession by the police on 15.5.2001 However, the recovery memo Ex.pw-1/B is dated 14.6.1991.Thus, the contradictions in his statement and the documents referred to above, render his statement unreliable and untrustworthy. 7. According to him, the trucks were taken in possession by the police on 15.5.2001 However, the recovery memo Ex.pw-1/B is dated 14.6.1991.Thus, the contradictions in his statement and the documents referred to above, render his statement unreliable and untrustworthy. 7. Version of pw-1 is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of pw-2 and pw-1. Pw-2 though , in his examination-in-chief, has supported partially the statement of pw-1, but he has not stated that after the trucks stopped at Saryana, the accused were taken to police post, Basantpur. As stated by him in his cross examination, they went towards Mand. Thus, he has not supported the version that the accused were taken to police post, Basantpur. He has not at all stated as to whether the trucks and the wood therein were taken in possession and the wood was given on spurdari to anyone. Thus, about the allegation that the wood was taken in possession and was handed over to pw-1, he has not supported the prosecution version. 8. Pw-4 had come upon with entirely a different version. It is not his version that because of the bad condition of the road and failure of the steering of one of the trucks, those could not be taken to police post, Thakurdwara. On the contrary, he has stated that both the trucks were taken to police post, Thakurdwara, where they reached at 11. O, clock He has further stated that from Thakurdwara the trucs were taken to Indora. He has further stated that the memo regarding seizure of the truck was prepared on the spot, whereas pw-1 and pw-2 have not stated so. At a later stage, he has stated that he was not present when the recovery memo was prepared. Evidently, he has contradicted the statements of pw-1 and pw-2 as to the developing of the mechanical defect by one of the trucks inability to taken them to police post, Thakurdwara, These contradictions in the statements of the witnesses are on most material particulars and render the statements of the foresaid witnesses highly unreliable and untrustworthy. 9. It may also be pointed out that the investigating officer, who seized the trucks and took in possession the wood and prepared the memos took in regarding recovery and spurdari has not been produced by the prosecution. 9. It may also be pointed out that the investigating officer, who seized the trucks and took in possession the wood and prepared the memos took in regarding recovery and spurdari has not been produced by the prosecution. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the production of the investigating officer was necessary to prove the prosecution case regarding seizure and spurdari of the trucks and the wood more so, when there is no other evidence on record to prove such seizure. Thus, an inference adverse to the case of the prosecution can be drawn from non production of the Investigating f Officer. 10. The seized wood in the case was a material piece of evidence and the seizure memo itself indicates that the wood was taken in possession as a piece of evidence against the accused. However, no specimen of the wood so seized has been produced at the time of evidence, from which an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution that no such wood existed. 11. It may also be noticed that the FIR, the site plan and the recovery memo of trucks and wood have not been proved at all by examining the concerned witnesses 12. The learned trial Magistrate, in his impugned judgment, had taken all the aforesaid aspects of the case into consideration and has thoroughly and properly scanned the prosecution evidence. In view of the above discussion, the conclusions arrived at by him in the impugned judgment are based on proper appreciation of the material on record and cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the evidence on record. The impugned judgment of acquittal, therefore, does not call for any interference by this court 13. As a result, the appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.