Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 845 (HP)

STATE OF H. P v. SARTAJ SINGH

2009-10-08

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The State has filed this petition seeking leave to file appeal against the order dated 28.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Appeal No. 1-G/X/2006 acquitting the respondent after setting aside conviction and sentence recorded under Section 323 IPC in criminal case No. 247-II/99 on 20.6.2006 by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Dehra. 2. The respondent and five others were prosecuted and charged for offence punishable under Sections 32, 33, 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act, Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC. All accused were acquitted except respondent who was convicted and sentenced under Section 323 IPC, he was directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for two months by learned Judicial Magistrate on 20.6.2006. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court has acquitted the respondent under Section 323 IPC and, therefore, State has filed this petition seeking leave to file appeal. 3. The prosecution case is that on 10.8.1999 at about 12.00 O’Clock mid night raiding party headed by DFO, Nagrota Surian saw 108 Khair logs lying on the spot and 38 Khair logs were loaded in truck No. HP-44-1857. According to prosecution, respondent was owner of the said truck, other accused had accompanied the respondent and they had cut the Khair trees, they were found transporting khair logs without any permit. The prosecution case is that respondent had used criminal force against Rakha Hari Singh who was in the raiding party. 4. The case against the respondent is that he voluntarily caused hurt to Rakha Hari Singh when Rakha Hari Singh asked the respondent from where he had brought the logs. All the accused were acquitted under Section 379 IPC and Sections 32, 33, 41 & 42 of Indian Forest Act. In other words, the prosecution story was not accepted by the trial Court regarding illicit cutting and transportation of the illicit cut logs. As per the prosecution case the basis for causing hurt to Rakha Hari Singh was illicit cutting of khair trees and loading of logs in the truck. In other words, the prosecution story was not accepted by the trial Court regarding illicit cutting and transportation of the illicit cut logs. As per the prosecution case the basis for causing hurt to Rakha Hari Singh was illicit cutting of khair trees and loading of logs in the truck. Once this part of the case of the prosecution was not accepted by the trial Court, then there is no question of respondent causing hurt to Rakha Hari Singh when Rakha Hari Singh allegedly asked the respondent from where he had brought the illicit logs. The trial Court acquitted all accused and only respondent was convicted for offence under Section 323 IPC. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has closely scrutinized the statements of PW-11 Hari Singh, PW-1 Vijay Kumar, PW-7 Sadhu Ram and PW-15 Dharam Chand and found many contradictions in the prosecution story. The trial Court had not believed the prosecution story that respondent and his companions were found cutting and loading of khair wood logs in the truck. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly recorded a finding that when respondent and his companions were not found cutting and loading khair wood logs in the truck then it cannot be believed that Rakha Hari Singh had raised objection upon which he was beaten by respondent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken a possible view from the evidence on record. The learned Additional Advocate General has failed to make out any case for grant of leave. Accordingly leave refused. Petition dismissed.