Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 990 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. MOHAMMAD NAZIR

2009-11-07

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2009
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)-This appeal by the State is directed against the JUDGMENT of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, Distt. Kangra, in Criminal Case No. 222-III/97 dated 13.5.2002, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 30.5.1995 two trucks bearing No. HPK-7460 and HIK 661 were intercepted in Ray Bazar. According to the prosecution, members of the Friends Club, Ray, had informed the Forest Official that some illicitly felled wood was being carried in these two trucks. On the basis of this information these two trucks were intercepted. Truck No. HIK-661 was allegedly driven by Balwant Singh and truck No. HPK-7460 was driven by Mohammad Nazir and Tarlok Singh was travelling in the said truck. According to the prosecution after the trucks were intercepted Mohammad Nazir fled away with truck No.HPK-7460 into Punjab territory. The Forest Officials alongwith members of the Friends Club, Ray, chased the said truck and found the same in Talwara alongwith the two accused Mohammad Nair and Tarolk Singh. Thereafter the truck alongwith the aforesaid two persons was brought back to Ray and both the trucks alongwith seized timber were parked in the office of the Range Officer, Ray. Thereafter, FIR No. 139/95 Ext. PA was registered. Investigation was done. The trucks were also taken into possession. During investigation, it was found that the trees were cut from the land belonging to different villagers. The main case was that the accused were carrying wood without any valid permit. The accused on appearance pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial they have been acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State. 3. I have heard Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Shri Himmat Negi appearing vice Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate for the accused. 4. The prosecution version is that both the trucks after they were intercepted and the second truck after it was brought back from Punjab were parked in the office of the Range Office, Ray. To prove its case the prosecution examined PW-1 Jang Bahadur, Range Officer, and PW-2 Bal Kishan, Forest Guard. According to them they had received information from the members of the Friends Club, Ray about the illicit transportation of wood. PW-3 is the General Secretary of the Friends Club, Ray. To prove its case the prosecution examined PW-1 Jang Bahadur, Range Officer, and PW-2 Bal Kishan, Forest Guard. According to them they had received information from the members of the Friends Club, Ray about the illicit transportation of wood. PW-3 is the General Secretary of the Friends Club, Ray. PW-4 and PW-5 are members of the said club. According to these witnesses after the truck HIK-661 was apprehended it was parked in the Range Office at Ray and driver Balwant Singh was still sitting in the truck. However, Investigating Officer PW-9 Sukh Ram states that at the time when he seized the truck and wood no accused was present at the spot. None of the witnesses have stated that accused Balwant Singh had fled away from the stop after he was apprehended. If he had not fled away how was he missing from the spot. 5. Similarly in respect to the accused Mohammad Nazir and Tarlok Singh, as per PW-1 to PW-5 these two accused were apprehended alongwith the truck but when the wood was seized these two persons were not there. In respect of truck No. HPK-7460 there is another lacuna in the prosecution case. Admittedly, according to the prosecution the truck fled into Punjab. No record has been maintained by the Forest Officials as to how they entered the territory of Punjab to seize the truck. They could not have gone into another State and seized the truck without associating the local police of the said State. There is also discrepancy between the prosecution witnesses with regard to the place from which place the truck was recovered. One witness states that the truck was recovered near Talwara Hospital but another witness states that the truck was found at lonely place near Talwara and therefore no person could be associated with the recovery of the truck at Talwara. This casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story as to where the truck was recovered from and under what circumstances. If the trucks alongwith the drivers and persons travelling in the truck had been apprehended on 30.5.1995 there is no explanation as to why police arrested the accused only on 16.6.1995 and 17.6.1995 after more than a fortnight. Once they had been identified and were on the spot what was the difficulty in arresting them there and then. If the trucks alongwith the drivers and persons travelling in the truck had been apprehended on 30.5.1995 there is no explanation as to why police arrested the accused only on 16.6.1995 and 17.6.1995 after more than a fortnight. Once they had been identified and were on the spot what was the difficulty in arresting them there and then. This obviously belies the prosecution version that the accused were apprehended alongwith the seized timber. It is apparent that the accused persons were not apprehended at the spot. There is no other evidence to link the accused with the seized timber. 6. In view of the above discussion, I find that the JUDGMENT of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly rejected.