Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 40 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. DEVKI NAND

2004-03-12

M.R.VERMA

body2004
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.11.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla whereby the accused/respondents Devki Nand, Attar Singh, Balak Ram and Hira Singh (hereafter referred to respectively as A-l to A-4) have been acquitted of a charge under Sections 120-B, 379 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that in the year 1981-82 A-l and one Devi Ram since deceased were working as Forest Contractors under the name and style of M/s. Devki Nand Devi Ram having IL Khudan mark and DD property mark. A-2 and A-3 at that time were respectively posted as Forest Guard and Block Officer in Chhajpur Forest and A-4 was posted as Range Officer, Forest Range, Jubbal. One Sansar Chand, since deceased was posted as Assistant Conservator of Forests, Forest Division Rohru. An inquiry was held about the allegation of the illicit felling in Chhajpur Forest and on the basis of the inquiry report Ext. PW-16/A and letter Ext. PW-16/B of V.K. Sharma (PW-1) FIR was registered by Police Station, Enforcement South Zone, Shimla. After obtaining requisite permission, the case was investigated by P.P. Sethi (PW-44). 3. During investigation, it was found that in the year 1981 aforesaid concern M/s. Devki Nand Devi Ram (hereinafter referred to as the offending firm) had purchased 46 logs of Deodar, 469 nags of Rai/Fur, 450 nags of Hakris and 200 Gelas, 29 logs of Deodar and 171 logs of Rai/Fur of the total volume of 398.63 cubic meters in two public auctions as such timber had come near Rumnu Khud because of the 1978 floods. The timber was so purchased for a consideration in the sum of Rs. 1,47,000. The said timber was converted by the offending firm into scants and as a result of such conversion 931 scants of Deodar and 9120 scants of Rai/Fur total 10051 scants became available. Such scants were marked with the Khudan and property marks of the offending firm. 4. 1,47,000. The said timber was converted by the offending firm into scants and as a result of such conversion 931 scants of Deodar and 9120 scants of Rai/Fur total 10051 scants became available. Such scants were marked with the Khudan and property marks of the offending firm. 4. The offending firm preferred an application alongwith the list of the aforesaid converted timber to D.F.O. Rohru for permission to float the said scants by way of Ghal from Rumnu Khud to Snail in Uttar Pradesh. The D.F.O. sent the said application alongwith its annexures for verification to A-2 to A-4. On verification A-2 and A-3 reported that no timber of illicit origin was found to have been collected by the firm for floating. Therefore, on the recommendations of A-2 and A-3 the concerned D.F.O. accorded permission to the firm to float the said scants numbering 10051 by ghal in Rumnu Khud. 5. The investigation further revealed that another Forest Contractor Mangal Singh was also floating timber by Ghal at that time and the timber being floated by two Ghals got mixed up. In the meanwhile, D.F.O. Rohru received complaint regarding floating of illicitly procured timber by the offending firm and the firm of Mangal Singh. A»2 when came to know about the floating of illicitly procured timber prepared damage reports No. 14 and 15 against the offending firm and the Forest Contractor Mangal Singh, copies whereof were endorsed to the D.F.O. Rohru. The floating work of both the Ghals was stopped and the timber was stacked. The offending firm feeling aggrieved by the stopping of its work filed a writ petition in the High Court in which a Commission was appointed. The timber collected on the spot was inspected and checked by the forest and police officials. Ext. PW 2/A is the list of the timber found in Rumnu Khad prepared by PW-2. Vide seizure Memo Ext. PW 2/G 46 scants of timber were recovered from a water channel in UPF Chhajpur. Ext. PW3/B is the list and Ext; PW 2/A is the seizure Memo, regarding 1199 nags of Devdar and Rai taken in possession from Rumnu Khad. Vide Seizure Memo. Ext. PW 3/C 13 nags of kail, vide memo Ext. PW 3/G timber of Devdar speci and vide Memo. Ext. PW 3/H some firewood were taken in possession from compartment No. 13-a of Chhajpur forest. Vide Memos. Exts. Vide Seizure Memo. Ext. PW 3/C 13 nags of kail, vide memo Ext. PW 3/G timber of Devdar speci and vide Memo. Ext. PW 3/H some firewood were taken in possession from compartment No. 13-a of Chhajpur forest. Vide Memos. Exts. PW 3/D and PW 3/J, 4 Deodar and 22 kail nags were taken in possession from UPF Chhajpur. Vide memos. Exts. PW 3/E and PW 3/F19 nags of Devdar were taken in possession from compartment-13 of Chhajpur forest. It was also found that the offending firm had floated 3499 scants of Deodar, 406 scants of Kail and 11388 scants of Rai/Fur against total number of 10051 scants which were allowed to be floated. Some of such scants were kept apart as sample scants and the remaining scants/timber were sold in a public auction as directed by the High Court. The auction money was deposited in the Government Treasury. 6. The investigation further revealed that the offending firm had no permission to launch/float any scant of Kail as no such scants were purchased by the firm at the public auction. However, the offending firm was found to have launched/floated excess timber than what was lawfully procured by it and permitted to be floated. Investigation revealed that the excess timber was procured by the offending firm by illicit felling of tress from compartment No. 13-A and U.P.F., Chhajpur. The unhammered stumps of illicitly felled tress were located in the forest and opinion about their age was obtained. The illicit felling of the trees was found to have been done by Devi Ram deceased and A-l as a result of a criminal conspiracy between them and A-2 to A-4. The stumps located in the forest were found to have been cut within a period of 1 to 3 years at the time of the detection and the timber recovered from the possession of the offending firm was not that purchased by it. 7. The investigation further revealed that on receipt of a complaint, the D.F.O., Rohru deputed A.C.F. Sansar Chand to inquire into the matter and report whether there had been illicit felling from Compartment No. 13-A and U.P.F. Chhajpur. Said Sansar Chand reported that no illicit felling had taken place. However, on investigation his report was found false. The total damage caused to the State by illicit felling of the trees was assessed in the sum of Rs. 2,56,491.25 (App.). 8. Said Sansar Chand reported that no illicit felling had taken place. However, on investigation his report was found false. The total damage caused to the State by illicit felling of the trees was assessed in the sum of Rs. 2,56,491.25 (App.). 8. During investigation various documents were taken in possession by the Investigating Agency alongwith the specimen signatures and writings of the accused persons to prove their involvement in the commission of the offences. After obtaining due sanction to prosecute the official accused and on completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against A-l to A-4, Devi Ram and Sansar Chand under Sections 379, 420, 218, 120-BIPC, Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the River Rules, 1971. The trial Court framed the aforesaid charge against A-l to A-4 and Devi Ram as Sansar Chand died before the framing of the charge. A-l to A-4 and Devi Ram pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, Devi Ram also died. 9. To prove the charge against A-l to A-4 prosecution examined 46 witnesses, one witness i.e. the Commission appointed by the High Court, as aforesaid was examined as a Court witness. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidence against them and their involvement in the commission of the offences. However, the accused persons did not lead any defence. 10. On examination of the material on record, the learned trial Judge concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubts and acquitted A-l to A-4. Aggrieved by the acquittal order the State has preferred the present appeal. 11. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State and the learned Counsel for the accused persons and have also gone through the records. 12. It may be pointed out here that the foundation of the case against the accused person is the offence of conspiracy pursuant to which the other offences were allegedly committed by them. 11. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State and the learned Counsel for the accused persons and have also gone through the records. 12. It may be pointed out here that the foundation of the case against the accused person is the offence of conspiracy pursuant to which the other offences were allegedly committed by them. While dealing with the legal aspects of an offence of conspiracy, this Court in Dhanna Ram and others v. State of H.P. (Latest HLJ 2002 (HP) 1024) held as follows:— "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 of conspiracy if it was done to carry out their general purpose. This is also 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 ordinarily, conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, thus, it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence thereof. Therefore, generally 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." 13. In Kehar Singh and others v. The State (Delhi Admit.), AIR 1988 SC 1883, the Honble 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. 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 inquire whether 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 conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express 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..." 14. In Yash Pal Mital v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2433, the Honble Apex Court held as under:— "....... 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 the 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 some times misfire or over-shooting 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..." 15. In Hari Ram v. State ofHimachal Pradesh, 1982 Cri. 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..." 15. In Hari Ram v. State ofHimachal 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 sheldom 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 from the basis of the Courts conclusion. In dealing with such cases based on circumstantial evidence, however, an inference of guilt need only be drawn when the circumstances are such as to be incapable of being reasonably explained on another hypothesis than the guilt of the accused." 16. It is in view of the aforesaid settled position in law, that this case is required to be examined. 17. There are certain admitted and undisputed facts of the case which may be summarised as follows. It is not in dispute that Chhajpur forest is a reserved forest vide notification Ext. PW 2/B and the market rates of the timber to be supplied to the persons other than the right holders had been specified/fixed vide Ext. PW 9/E. It is also not in dispute that the offending firm was a registered private sale contractor having been allotted the Khudan mark IL and property mark DD valid from 16.5.1983 to 31.12.1985 and A-l and deceased Devi Ram were its partners. The postings and official status of the accused-forest officials at the relevant time, as claimed by the prosecution is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that because of floods in the year 1978, a lot of timber was flooded and came floating in Rumnu Khad. So floated timber consisted only of Deodar and Rai/Fur. The timber so floated in the Khad scattered and stranded on the banks of Rumnu Khad was counted, measured and lists thereof were prepared. Finally in the year 1981 such logs were auctioned in two lots and the offending firm was the auction purchaser. Some of the logs were partially hurried, therefore, the measurement of the auctioned logs was worked out subject to variation of 5 to 10%. Finally in the year 1981 such logs were auctioned in two lots and the offending firm was the auction purchaser. Some of the logs were partially hurried, therefore, the measurement of the auctioned logs was worked out subject to variation of 5 to 10%. It is also not in dispute that the timber so purchased by the offending firm after its extraction/conversion was permitted to be floated as Ghal by the offending firm, vide letter Ext. PW 36/B dated 30.4.1983. The speci-wize quantity sought to be floated and permitted to be so floated by the competent authority was 931 nags (volume 1010.95 cft.) of Deodar, 9120 nags (volume 10309.95 eft.) of Rai/Fur as per the extract Ext. PW 12/J. 18. The taking of the specimen writings and signatures of the accused during investigation has also not been disputed by the accused. It is also not in dispute that when the offending firm was floating its Ghal another firm of one Mangal Singh had also floated a Ghal in the same Khad and the timber being floated in two Ghals got mixed up. The property mark of the other firm is admittedly IH. It is also admitted case of the parties that floating /export of the timber by the offending firm was stopped and it filed a writ in the High Court which appointed a commission and finally directed auction of the stacked/seized timber and to deposit the proceeds in the Government Treasury to be dealt with as per the final outcome of the case. Rest of the version of the prosecution whereby the accused are sought to be connected with the commission of the offences is denied by the accused. 19. It is also pertinent to point out before discussing the evidence in the case that the learned Special Public Prosecutor while arguing the case before the learned Special Judge had conceded that the timber having double Khudan Mark DD and IH "could not be connected with the commission of the crime by the accused" because IH Khudan Mark was not of the offending firm but it was that of the firm of Mangal Singh. It was also conceded that 46 slippers seized vide memo. Ext. PW 2/G "cannot also connect the accused with the commission of alleged crime" because these were not recovered from the possession of the offending firm. It was also conceded that 46 slippers seized vide memo. Ext. PW 2/G "cannot also connect the accused with the commission of alleged crime" because these were not recovered from the possession of the offending firm. It is also admitted case that this recovery was not pursuant to any disclosure statement. Even now this remains the stand for the state. Thus, the prosecution seeks to connect the accused with the commission of the offences on the basis of the excess timber worked out after counting the timber stacked at Anti. 20. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution had thus relied apart from the statements of Mast Ram (PW-5) and Amar Singh (PW-6) regarding felling of trees by the offending firm, on the following circumstances:— (a) The offending firm floated excess timber than it was permitted and also floated kail-timber without permission. (b) The offending firm felled 173 deodar trees and 6 kail trees illicitly with the aid and connivance of A-2 to A-4 at the relevant time. (c) The opinion that the age of the stumps of illicitly felled trees and the age of the excess floated timber stacked at Anti was the same. (d) The recovery of timber of illicit origin from the launching point in Rumnu Khad, Compartment No. 13-A of Chhajpur forest and UPF, Chhajpur. (e) - The act of the offending firm itself showing in the list Ext. PW19 / A-l the excess timber floated by it, and. (f) The certification and verification by A2 to A4 that the timber sought to be floated by the offending firm was not of illicit origin and no illicit felling was done by the offending firm read with damage report Ext. PW 9/A against the offending firm issued by A-2 regarding timber floating without permission. 21. Insofar as the statements of PW-5 and PW-6 are concerned, the learned trial Judge held that these statements are not consistent, trustworthy and believable. This conclusion of the learned trial Judge is based on detailed and proper discussion and analysis of the aforesaid statements as contained in the impugned judgment. 22. 21. Insofar as the statements of PW-5 and PW-6 are concerned, the learned trial Judge held that these statements are not consistent, trustworthy and believable. This conclusion of the learned trial Judge is based on detailed and proper discussion and analysis of the aforesaid statements as contained in the impugned judgment. 22. PW-5 has stated that he had been working as Charani and did Charan work for A-l in Compartment No. 13 of Chhajpur forest in the year 1982-83 and also worked for the offending firm around the house of A-l. He has further deposed that he had done the Charan of some TD trees and some illicitly felled trees having no mark. It is admitted by him in his cross-examination that he is not aware of the area of Dehat (UPF) / Chhajpur nor he knows as to what is compartment It is thus apparent from the statement of this witness that he has not stated anything about illicit felling of trees in Compartment No. 13-A and UPF Chhajpur forest and he himself had not done the felling of the trees but did the Charan work only. He has not stated as to from where and which tree the logs which he saw were obtained. In any case, it is his admitted case that he did fell only the TD trees and did Charan only of TD timber He was never taken to the spot to identify the trees from which the logs which he saw were procured. It is further admitted by him that the illicit felling was done by contractors Dal Prasad and Dan Prasad. It is not his evidence that said Dal Prasad and Dan Prasad contractors did the illicit felling for the offending firm or at the behest of A-l or deceased Devi Ram. Thus, the statement of PW-5 is not reliable and confidence inspiring regarding the alleged illicit felling of trees by the offending firm from compartment No. 13-A and UPF, Chhajpur. 23. PW-6 has stated that A-l was having work in Compartment No. 13, and timber was taken to Rumnu Khad and they were converting the logs taken from the corporation. Thus, the statement of PW-5 is not reliable and confidence inspiring regarding the alleged illicit felling of trees by the offending firm from compartment No. 13-A and UPF, Chhajpur. 23. PW-6 has stated that A-l was having work in Compartment No. 13, and timber was taken to Rumnu Khad and they were converting the logs taken from the corporation. He has further stated that PW-5 was working for A-l and he told that some of the timber was illicit and belonged to A-l. This witness has also not stated anything about the alleged illicit felling of trees in compartment No. 13-A and UPF, Chhajpur. He is admittedly unaware as to whether the timber removed from the spot was T.D. timber or not. It is admitted by him that A-l had instituted a Civil Suit for recovery of money against him which was decreed and in execution of the decree his property was attached. Though he has denied the suggestion that it is because of enmity that he had deposed against the accused but from the above admission a motive on his part to falsely implicate A-l in the case can be readily inferred rendering his statement unreliable. 24. It may be pointed out here that the statement of PW-5 that the illicit felling of trees was done by contractors Man Prasad and Dan Prasad had not been disputed by the prosecution in any manner. However, the prosecution has not led any evidence to show that said contractors were co-conspirators with the accused persons or they did the felling work on the asking of the offending firm or A-l or deceased Devi Ram. They have not been produced by the prosecution as witnesses and no reason for their non-production is forth coming from which an inference adverse to the prosecution can be readily drawn. 25. In view of the above discussion the learned trial Judge was fully justified in not believing the unreliable and non-confidence inspiring statements of PW-5 and PW-6. Circumstance (a) : 26. According to the prosecution the offending firm vide application Ext. PW 15/B dated 18.3.1983 sought the permission to float 931 Nags (volume 1010.95 CRT) of deodar and 9120 Nags (volume 10309.95 CFT) of Rai/Fur and such permission was accorded by the D.F.O. concerned vide Ext. PW 36/B dated 30.4.1983. This part of the prosecution version is not in dispute. According to the prosecution the offending firm vide application Ext. PW 15/B dated 18.3.1983 sought the permission to float 931 Nags (volume 1010.95 CRT) of deodar and 9120 Nags (volume 10309.95 CFT) of Rai/Fur and such permission was accorded by the D.F.O. concerned vide Ext. PW 36/B dated 30.4.1983. This part of the prosecution version is not in dispute. However, the further case of the prosecution is that when the floated timber was stopped, stacked and counted at Anti the offending firm was found to have floated excess timber than the permitted Nags and volume and was also found to have floated Kail Nags for which no permission was granted. According to the prosecution excess timber so found was 1504 Nags (volume 5624.05 CFT) of Deodar 1222 Nags (6263.92 CFT) of Rai/ Fur and 80 Nags (282.29 CFT) of Kail as detailed in the statement Ext. PW 14/A read with general abstract of the timber lying at Anti Ext. PW 13/ B and list of stacked timber Ext. PW 13/A. It also appears to be the case of the prosecution that during investigation lists of this stacked timber were prepared and 12 pieces of timber were separated therefrom as sample vide Memo. Ext. PW 2/B. 27. Hira Lal (PW-13) had stated that he alongwith Lachhi Ram and Prabhu Dayal sorted out the timber of the Ghal of the offending firm and M/s. Mangal Singh and Co. speciwise, size-wise and property markwise after the timber was stacked by contractor Budh Ram by employing labourers to do the needful. He has further stated that list of the timber of A-l is Ext. PW 13/A and abstract thereof is Ext. PW 13/B. It is, however, admitted by him that timber of two Ghals, one of the offending firm and another of M/s. Mangal Singh and Co. had mixed up and mixed timber was sorted out and coupted by him and his companion forest officials. It is further admitted by him that the timber was stacked at different places. He has further admitted that initially temporary list was prepared and thereafter a fair copy was prepared. The rough notes (list) admittedly are not produced in evidence and according to the witness those must have been thrown away. It is further admitted by him that there could be error or discrepancy of two or one present in counting and identifying the timber. The rough notes (list) admittedly are not produced in evidence and according to the witness those must have been thrown away. It is further admitted by him that there could be error or discrepancy of two or one present in counting and identifying the timber. It is also admitted by him that forest officials maintain daily diary and for the relevant period he had maintained such diary. In view of these admissions by this witness it cannot be said that the list and abstract Exts, PVV 13/A and PW 13/ B were correctly prepared without committing any mistake in counting and identifying the mixed timber of two Ghals, more so because of destruction of the notes regarding counting and identification of timber and non-production of the daily diary of work maintained by the witness. 28. Lachhi Ram (PW-14) is the other forest official who was associated in the preparation of Exts. PW 13/A and PW 13/B. He has stated that he had prepared the aforesaid lists and the abstract Ext. PW 14/A. According to him it took almost three months to complete the work of stacking which was done at different places. It is admitted by him that as per the instructions of the senior Officers they were to prepare daily list of the timber received and stacked and they used to send weekly progress reports and there were some note-books also in which they used to make entries daily and sent such note-books to D.F.Os office. He admitted that correctness of the contents of Exts. PW 13/A, PW 13/B and PW 14/A could be verified on the basis of such note-books. Admittedly such note-books had not been produced nor any other record containing the requisite daily entries about the received and stacked timber and weekly progress reports containing such entries had not been produced in evidence. He has further admitted that at the relevant time they were not having the specific hammers of property marks of the two firms whose Ghals had mixed up but they were only told about such marks. He has further admitted that PW 13 had several time told him that on some timber the property marks were not legible but he found the marks legible and there Was never any difference in the marking/identifying the timber by him and PW 13. He has further admitted that PW 13 had several time told him that on some timber the property marks were not legible but he found the marks legible and there Was never any difference in the marking/identifying the timber by him and PW 13. It is not understood as to why PW 13 could not decipher the property mark on some timber and how this witness did so without having any point of difference with PW-13 about the correct identification of the property mark. Thus, the statement of this witness is not reliable about the correct counting and identification of the timber and correct preparation of the lists/ abstract aforesaid. 29. It may also be pointed out here that admittedly PW 13 and PW 14 had been maintaining records of the daily receipt and stacking of the timber and the work of collecting and stacking the timber continued for about three months. Daily lists, weekly progress reports and the note-books having daily entries thus were the primary evidence about the counting and identification of the timber. It is nobodys case that such record is now non-existent except the rough notes. Therefore, non-production of the said records renders the prosecution version regarding correct counting and identifying the timber highly suspicious, more so because the list Ext. PW 13/A mentions the entry of timber, stacked, checked and counted on 9th, 10th and 11th day o£ August, 1983 and appears to have been prepared in one-go without mentioning the date of its preparation. In case these lists were contemporaneous the details in Ext PW 13/A of timber would have been of a period of three months, during which the work admittedly continued. 30. According to PW-14, Register Ext. P-15 is one of such records on the basis of which the correctness of the list Ext. PW 13/A can be verified. However, this register appears to be a fabricated piece of evidence. As per undated certificate appended to this register, it consists of 102 pages. From page 20 onwards till the last page each page number contains cutting. The entries in this register are not as per the Index given at the back of the first leaf. As per this index pages 2 to 29 contain details of deodar timber, pages 30 to 61 that of kail and pages 62 to 102 that of Rai. From page 20 onwards till the last page each page number contains cutting. The entries in this register are not as per the Index given at the back of the first leaf. As per this index pages 2 to 29 contain details of deodar timber, pages 30 to 61 that of kail and pages 62 to 102 that of Rai. However, pages other than pages 2, 3, 6 to 24, 30, 31, 34 to 38 and 62 to 65 are blank. After entries dated 11.8.1983 entries dated 25th and 26th July, 1983 have been made. Thereafter entries dated 24.8.1983, and then entries dated 25.7.1983 have been made. Thus, the entries are neither complete as per the index nor are in chronological order. A register having such entries is not only worthless piece of evidence but also appears to have been fabricated. Therefore, it is not an authentic document to verify the correctness of doubtful entries in Ext. PW 13/A. 31. It may also be pointed out that there is no dispute that for correct identification of the timber meant for export, it must contain Khudan mark and property mark which are allotted to the contractor by the Forest Department. There is no dispute that allotted Khudan mark and property mark of the offending form were IU and DD, As per the list Ext. PW 13/ A only two scants of deodar had these marks whereas all are shown having DD mark except 5 scants having Khudan mark IH. Other scants had no Khudan mark. It is also not in dispute that IH was not the Khudan mark allotted to the offending firm but it was allotted to M/s. Mangal Singh and Co. whose timber admittedly got mixed up with the timber of the offending firm. No attempt was made to compare the DD hammer allotted to the offending firm with the DD mark found on the timber. No IH hammer was compared with IH mark on 5 scants to connect the timber with either of the two firms. Thus, the correctness of the entries in the basic document Ext. PW 13/A is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. The subsequent documents prepared on the basis of list Ext PW 13/A viz. Exts. PW 13/ B and PW 14/A cannot be termed as correct and authentic and are, therefore not reliable. 32. Thus, the correctness of the entries in the basic document Ext. PW 13/A is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. The subsequent documents prepared on the basis of list Ext PW 13/A viz. Exts. PW 13/ B and PW 14/A cannot be termed as correct and authentic and are, therefore not reliable. 32. It is further case of the prosecution that the timber stacked at Anti was seized by the police during investigation and after retaining samples of so seized timber/ the remaining timber was handed over on suprdari. PW-8 who is the main witness in this regard has stated that the timber stacked at Anti was taken in possession by the police and after separating samples handed ovar the same to Longu Ram, ADM, Forest Corporation, vide Memo. Ext. PW 8/D and that the memo regarding retaining the samples is Ext. PW 2/B and the lists prepared by him about such timber are Exts. PW 8/A to PW 8/C. The details of timber as given in Exts. PW 8/A the list of timber lying at Anti does not tally with the details of timber given in the list Ext. PW 13/A. Variations in the details in those two lists are not explained. List Ext. PW 13/A contains entries about existence of Khudan mark IH of M/s. Mangal Singh and Co. on some scants but latter list does not contain any reference to such timber. The witness has not stated that the timber at Anti was duly checked by him to see that each scant/ piece thereof contained DD mark or that mark DD tallied with the hammer containing DD mark allotted to the offending firm. 33. PW-8 has identified the timber Exts. P-3 to P-14 as the separately retained samples vide Memo. Ext. PW 2/B. A perusal of memo. Ext. PW 2/B shows that the slippers, three round ballis, 3 harkaris 3 dimdimas one each of deodar, kail and Rai were kept apart from the timber stacked at Anti as samples. The Court observations made after identifying of the sample by the witness are as follows:— "One Hakri has property mark DD and Khudan mark IL, 4 Hakries have property mark DD and Khudan mark Nil. 1 Hakri has no property and Khudan mark. 2 Round Balies have DD property mark whereas the rest of the balies have neither any property mark nor hammer mark. 1 Hakri has no property and Khudan mark. 2 Round Balies have DD property mark whereas the rest of the balies have neither any property mark nor hammer mark. 2 slippers have DD property mark out of which one Khudan Mark is Nil whereas on other Khudan mark is IH and the 3rd slipper has neither property mark nor Khudan mark." 34. In view of the above observations of the trial Court, it is conclusively established that what has been produced as sample timber in the court as evidence consists 6 Harkaris, three slippers and more than 2 ballis (which may be three in number as the total timber pieces produced are 12). Thus, one of the sample dimdimas out of three was produced and shown to the witness. Out of 12 exhibits at least three sample pieces did not contain any Khudan or property mark. It amply clarifies that counting of the species, size and identifying the Khudan and property mark on the timber at Anti was erroneous and was done without due application of mind. So carelessly was the job done that one fourth of the sample timber does not tally even with the sample sought to be proved. No reliance whatsoever can, therefore, be placed on the statement of PW-8 and the lists Exts. PW 8/A, B and C prepared by him. 35. The prosecution seeks corroboration of the statement of PW-8 from the statement of Salig Ram (PW-2). He has stated that vide Memo Ext. PW 2/B timber having DD mark was taken in possession by the police and was handed over to L.R. Dogra. According to the prosecution this is same sample timber about which PW-8 has stated. PW-2 has identified this sample timber having DD mark which was taken in possession vide memo. Ext. PW 2/B. He has, however, specifically admitted that hammer mark in one slipper and two ballis is not visible. In one slipper and one dimdima there is Khudan mark IH and in the rest the mark is DD. His statement also comes to that atleast three of the samples did not contain any mark and two of such samples had Khudan mark IH admittedly the mark allotted to M/s. Mangal Singh and Co. and has nothing to do with the offending firm. This circumstance is, therefore, not established. Circumstances (b to e): 36. His statement also comes to that atleast three of the samples did not contain any mark and two of such samples had Khudan mark IH admittedly the mark allotted to M/s. Mangal Singh and Co. and has nothing to do with the offending firm. This circumstance is, therefore, not established. Circumstances (b to e): 36. Since these circumstances are interwoven and intended to prove illicit felling, therefore, are taken up together for consideration. It may be pointed out that the evidence of PW 5 and PW-6 regarding alleged illicit felling by the offending firm has already been held unreliable and non-confidence inspiring. As already stated, hereinbefore, it is conceded for the prosecution before the trial Court and not disputed before this Court that the prosecution has not been able to connect the recovered timber except the timber stacked and counted at Anti. Since the timber other than the timber stacked at Anti is not shown to have been recovered from the possession or at the instance of the accused and there is no cogent and trustworthy evidence to show that the timber seized by the police except the timber stacked at Anti was procured by the offending firm by illicit means therefore, circumstance (d) supra is not established and proved so as to connect the accused persons with the commission of offences alleged to have been committed by them. 37. The list of timber Ext. PW 19/A-l was produced by PW-19 to the police during investigation. PW-19 has not stated that as to who is the author of this document. Neither opinion of expert has been obtained nor any witness has been examined to prove as to who had authored and signed Ext. PW19/A-1. Therefore, this document relied as circumstance (e) is also of no help to the prosecution. 38. The prosecution has laid emphasis on the opinion about the age of the stumps of trees found in compartment No. 13-A and UPF, Chhajpur relatable to the time of felling of trees illicitly and the excess timber found at anti. This circumstance cannot be relied upon primarily for the reason that the prosecution has failed to prove that the excess timber was in fact floated by the offending firm and none else. This circumstance cannot be relied upon primarily for the reason that the prosecution has failed to prove that the excess timber was in fact floated by the offending firm and none else. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that the timber lawfully extracted from the auctioned logs was identified and separated and the remainder only was inspected for age determination and was found of the age comparable with the age of the stumps. Lastly, the statements of the so-called experts examined to prove the age of stumps are highly unreliable. 39. To opine about the age of stumps the prosecution examined Sohan Singh (PW-7), HR Arya (PW-33), Hukkam Chand (PW 34) and R.C Sharma (PW-39). PW-7 in his evidence clearly confessed his inability to opine about the age of timber stacked at Anti. PW-33 has stated that as far as he remembered they analysed the stumps and the age of illicit cutting was found to be between one to three years. He had gone to the spot on 11th/12th November, 1983. The timber logs were purchased by the offending firm on 2nd May and 8th September, 1981, therefore, there is no question of their undertaking the extraction of timber for floating purposes before the dates of auction purchases. Thus, the stumps of opined age of three years do not suggest the felling at the time when the offending firm could be expected to do it. There is nothing on record that this witness had acquired and specialised in the field of determining the age of timber. He has not pointed out any peculiar feature of the stumps on which his opinion is based. Thus, his opinion, which is only an opinion, cannot be relied to connect the timber stacked at Anti with the stumps found in the forest, more so, because it is not his evidence that he had seen the timber stacked at Anti to find out similarity between its age and age of the stumps. 40. PW-34 has stated that the stumps detected in the concerned forest were fresh and between 1 to 3 years of age. There is nothing on the record to show that this witness has expert knowledge about age determination of timber. 40. PW-34 has stated that the stumps detected in the concerned forest were fresh and between 1 to 3 years of age. There is nothing on the record to show that this witness has expert knowledge about age determination of timber. Neither he has given any peculiar features of the stumps seen by him which according to him were underground nor he inspected the stacked timber at Anti to form opinion about similarity of age of stumps and stacked timber. Therefore, his opinion being not an opinion of a specialised person cannot be relied. 41. PW-39 has stated that he visited the spot with the commission appointed by the High Court and certain illicitly felled stumps were found in compartment No. 13 and the approximate age of such stumps was between 3 to 5 years. He has further stated that the age of stumps was worked out on the basis of discolouration, decay and his experience. The accused are charged for illicit felling in Compartment No. 13-A and UPF Chhajpur, therefore, whatever this witness states about the age of stumps in compartment No. 13 is not relevant. He has also not stated about specialization on the subject of age estimation of tree stumps. He has not given opinion about the age of timber found at Anti. Thus, his statement is also of no help to the prosecution to prove illicit felling of trees in compartment No. 13-A and UPF, Chhajpur by the accused. Thus, the opinion evidence relied upon by the prosecution is not expert opinions nor it advances the cause of prosecution in proving alleged illicit felling of trees by the accused persons in Compartment No. 13-A and UPF, Chhajpur. 42. In view of the above discussion none of the aforesaid circumstances is firmly established so as to prove the case of the prosecution. Circumstance (f): 43. This circumstance apparently is not supportive but is destructive of the charge of conspiracy against the accused persons. The case of prosecution is that on one hand A-2 to A-4 certified that the timber sought to be floated by the offending firm was not of illicit origin whereas on the other accused A-2 issued damage report Ext. PW 9/A against the offending firm. It is evident from the damage report Ext. PW 9/A that it is not about any illicit felling by the offending firm. PW 9/A against the offending firm. It is evident from the damage report Ext. PW 9/A that it is not about any illicit felling by the offending firm. In fact as per its contents the offending firm floated timber without permission. The allegation of illicit felling of trees and "floating timber without permission" are absolutely distinct acts. A report that "there was no illicit felling" or "timber of illicit original was not proposed to be launched" is not contradicted by a report that timber is being floated without permission. Assuming that offending firm "floated timber without permission as mentioned in Ext. PW 9/A" it cannot be presumed and held that timber so floated was of illicit origin. 44. The other aspect of the matter is that in the event of A-2 having conspired with the offending firm, he would not have issued a damage report against it. If he did so he was not acting in furtherance of any conspiracy with the offending firm or its partners but complained against them about alleged unlawful floating of timber. 45. In view of the above discussion and reasons there is no congent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence on record to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts and the learned trial Judge who has examined the evidence in detail, had rightly concluded so. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 46. As a result, this appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.