Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 968 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. MOHINDER SINGH

2009-11-04

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.-This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 25.9.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Amb in case No. 41-III/2001 acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.12.2000 at about 2.30 a.m. PW-7 HC Balbir Singh along with PW-3 LHC Kewal Singh, PW-1 C. Raj Bahadur and LHC Mala Singh were present at Panwra road in connection with patrol duty and Naka. It has been alleged that tempo bearing registration No. PB-07-E2967 appeared there from Panwra side and was proceeding towards Hoshiarpur. PW-7 HC Balbir Singh and others signaled the vehicle to stop, the driver stopped the vehicle and immediately jumped out from the window and escaped taking the benefit of darkness. The two persons sitting in the tempo were caught, they disclosed their names Mohinder Singh and Shyam Singh. On checking, the tempo was found carrying Cheel logs and 30 Qtls. of fuel wood. The accused disclosed that they had cut the forest produce from Kaloh forest and were going to sell at Hoshiarpur. The accused could not produce any permit or authorisation for transporting the forest produce. During investigation, it was disclosed that Sansar Chand was driving the tempo. Ruka Ex.PW-3/A was drawn and there upon FIR Ex.PW-7/A was registered. The Tempo along with forest produce were taken into possession. Mohinder Singh and Shyam Singh in presence of PW2 Munshi Ram and Gurbachan Singh made disclosure statement Ex.PW-7/D and vide Ex.PW-7/E identified the place. Mohinder Singh vide memo Ex.PW-7/F got recovered saw Ex.P-5 and drat Ex.P-6. The demarcation was got conducted vide report Ex.PW6/A. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. The respondents allegedly committed offence punishable under Sections 41,42 of the Indian Forest Act, notice of accusation was put to them accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses and produced some documentary evidence on record. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution case but led no evidence in defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate on conclusion of trial acquitted the accused, hence the State has come in appeal. 4. Heard and perused the record. Mr. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses and produced some documentary evidence on record. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution case but led no evidence in defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate on conclusion of trial acquitted the accused, hence the State has come in appeal. 4. Heard and perused the record. Mr. A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate has misconstrued, mis-interpreted the material on record and has erred in acquitting the respondents. He has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has prayed for setting aside the acquittal of the respondents. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that no fault can be found with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 5. PW-1 C. Raj Bahadur, PW-3 LHC Kewal Singh and PW-7 HC Balbir Singh had tried to support the prosecution case. But close scrutiny of their statements establishes that they are contradicting each other on material particulars. Ex.PW-7/B is the site plan. PW-1 C. Raj Bahadur has stated that Naka was laid at a distance of half kilometer from main Gagret – Hoshiarpur road and from that place main road was not visible. On the contrary, PW-7 HC Balbir Singh has stated that Nakka was laid at a distance of 100 yards from main road. PW-1 has stated that they had come directly from Police Station to the place for laying Naka. However, PW-2 Munshi Ram has stated that they had earlier patrolled village Nangal Jarialan, thereafter, they came to Panwra road at about 1.00 a.m. and laid Naka. PW-1 has stated that he stopped the vehicle by giving the signal, he and H.C. Balbir Singh chased accused Sansar Chand for about 100 feet but in vain. PW3 has stated that Balbir Singh and Mala Ram were sitting in Mini bus. He and Raj Bahadur were standing on the road. They on seeing the vehicle approaching gave a signal to stop. He has not stated that accused Sansar Chand was chased by PW-1 or PW-7. PW-7 H.C. Balbir Singh has stated that PW-1 C. Raj Bahadur signaled the vehicle to stop. He denied that they tried to chase the accused Sansar Chand. 6. They on seeing the vehicle approaching gave a signal to stop. He has not stated that accused Sansar Chand was chased by PW-1 or PW-7. PW-7 H.C. Balbir Singh has stated that PW-1 C. Raj Bahadur signaled the vehicle to stop. He denied that they tried to chase the accused Sansar Chand. 6. PW-3 has stated that earlier a scooter had also crossed the Naka and the scooterist remained on the spot for some time. But crossing of a scooter has been denied by PW-1 and PW-7. PW-1 has stated that PW-3 LHC Kewal Singh had not returned when he had gone with ruka. This witness has also stated that PW-3 and Mala Ram took the vehicle to the Police Station. PW-3 LHC Kewal Singh has stated that he did not return after he had gone along with ruka. This creates a suspicion in the prosecution case. 7. The learned Judicial Magistrate has highlighted the contradictions in the prosecution case. PW2 Munshi Ram has not supported the case of the prosecution with respect to alleged disclosure statement of Mohinder Singh and Shyam Singh. The learned Additional Advocate General has not pointed out any specific oral or documentary evidence which has not been considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, but otherwise goes to the root of the case nor it has been shown that impugned judgment is perverse. The view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate emerges from the evidence on record. It is settled proposition of law that appellate court shall not convert the acquittal into conviction merely because other view is possible. The learned Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record. The learned Additional Advocate General has failed to make out a case for interference. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged.