Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1597 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Murti Ram

2011-03-22

RAJIV SHARMA, SURJIT SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, Judge State has appealed against the judgment dated 30th June, 2011, of the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondent Murti Ram and others (hereinafter called accused), have been acquitted of charge, under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 218 and 120-B of the India Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Accused-respondent Murti Ram and his deceased co-accused Mohi Ram were petty forest contractors. They used to enter into agreements with private land owners to purchase timber trees standing on private land and after obtaining permission from Forest Authorities, lumber those trees. In the year 1974, they submitted 10 applications alongwith affidavits and agreements of 10 private owners of land, situated in villages Kutagan and Kutah, to the D.F.O. with the request to mark the trees, standing on the land described in those 10 applications. D.F.O. marked those applications to accused Satya Dev Sharma, who was then working as Range Officer, with the direction to mark the trees on the private land described in those applications, after obtaining demarcation from the revenue officials. 3. Satya Dev Sharma approached Shri Sher Singh (deceased), the then S.D.O.(Civil) for carrying out the demarcation. Said Sher Singh carried out the demarcation with the assistance of Kanungo, Kanwar Singh (now dead) and accused-respondent Hari Dass, also a Kanungo. The land described in the application by said Sher Singh, was got demarcated. Trees were marked by Satya Dev Sharma, Range Officer and Bir Singh, respondent-accused, who was Block Officer and Kewal Ram, Devi Ram, accused, who were then working as Forest Guards. 4. 845 trees were marked, in respect of which, lists Ex. PW/1 to Ex. PW/18 were prepared. It was certified by S.D.O. (Civil) Sher Singh (now dead), Hari Dass, Kanungo and the above-named Forest Officials-accused that no tree had been marked on Government land and all the marked trees stood on the private land described in the applications. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid marking lists and the recommendation of Revenue and Forest Officials, D.F.O., Chopal granted permission to fell 845 trees included in the lists. Copy of the felling order is Ex. PU/1. It is dated 01.06.1997. The trees were felled by deceased-respondent Mohi Ram and respondent Murti Ram, pursuant to the aforesaid felling order. The trees yielded 8678 scants of timber. Copy of the felling order is Ex. PU/1. It is dated 01.06.1997. The trees were felled by deceased-respondent Mohi Ram and respondent Murti Ram, pursuant to the aforesaid felling order. The trees yielded 8678 scants of timber. The list of those scants was submitted to the D.F.O, seeking permission to export the same. Permission was granted. 6. While investigating case F.I.R. No. 67/77, Sukh Ram, Superintendent of Police, noticed that in the garb of felling of trees on private land in villages Kutagan and Kutah, a large scale felling of trees had taken place on Government land. He made a report to S.H.O., Police Station, Chopal, who registered a case vide F.I.R. No. 100/1977, Ex. P-B. The case was investigated. During the course of investigation, PW-20 Abhey Pant, S.D.O. (Civil) demarcated the land on which marking was required to be done. He also demarcated the adjoining Government land. As per his report, Ex. PW-20/20 and its enclosures Ex. PW-20/1 to Ex. PW-20/19, as also the list of stumps prepared by PW-21 Shri Om Parkash Solanki, Block Officer and PW-22 Liaq Ram, Range Officer, it was noticed that out of total 845 trees, which were shown to have been marked on private land, described in the applications, only 305 stumps were there on the private land, 769 stumps were found on Government land and 54 stumps were found on private land, other than the land of 10 land owners, in whose names applications had been submitted. 7. Investigation also revealed that thumb impressions of two of the land owners on their applications, namely, Lachhi Ram, son of Mohtu, R/o Tharoch and Lachhi Ram, S/o Shri Bhuru, R/o Kutah were different from their specimen thumb impressions and signatures. On affidavits signatures, purported to be of two other applicants, namely, Chhimba and Gangu, both sons of Keshav, did not match with their standard signatures. 8. Investigation also revealed that though the timber allegedly extracted from the trees was permitted to be exported by deceased Mohi Ram and respondent-accused Murti Ram through M/s. Himachal Pradesh Traders, of which accused Vijay Kumar is one of the partners and, therefore, the timber was supposed to bear the Khudan mark of deceased Mohi Ram, respondent-accused Mrurti Ram and firm M/s. Himachal Pradesh Traders, but some of the scants recovered during investigation, bore different Khudan mark, indicating that the timber was of illicit origin. 9. 9. According to the prosecution, there was a conspiracy among the private respondents-accused including deceased Mohi Ram and the officials of Revenue and Forest Departments, named as accused, to fell trees from Government land, in the garb of felling from private land and in pursuance of that conspiracy, 679 trees had been felled from Government land and 54 trees from private land of land owners, other than those, who had applied for felling permission. 10. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code alongwith relevant papers, was filed in the Court of learned Special Judge (Forests), who after complying with the provisions of Section 207, Cr. P.C. and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel, charged the respondents with the offences of criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating, preparation of incorrect record under I.P.C. and offence of misconduct under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 11. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Prosecution examined 92 witnesses, besides proving a large number of documents to substantiate its case. Respondents in their statements, under Section 313, Cr. P.C., denied that there was any conspiracy of the type, alleged by the prosecution or that the felling of trees had been carried out on Government land or even private land, other than the land mentioned in the applications. 12. Learned trial Court concluded that the case of the prosecution that felling had taken place on Government land or private land of some persons, other than those in whose names applications had been submitted, did not stand established. Consequently, respondents were acquitted. 13. Learned trial Court has concluded that demarcation given by Shri Abhey Pant (PW-20), suffers from no illegality or irregularity. However, it has been held by the learned trial Court that stumps, which were found on Government land and also on private land, other than the land of 10 applicants, do not stand connected with the trees, which were marked by respondent Satya Dev Sharma, Bir Singh, Kewal Ram and Devi Ram, on the basis of demarcation given by late Sher Singh, S.D.O. (Civil) and his subordinate field staff, namely, Kanwar Singh and accused Hari Dass, both Kanungos. Learned trial Court has given this finding on the basis of testimony of PW-22 Liaq Ram, Range Officer and PW-23 Khiyali Ram, Block Officer. 14. Learned trial Court has given this finding on the basis of testimony of PW-22 Liaq Ram, Range Officer and PW-23 Khiyali Ram, Block Officer. 14. We have heard learned Deputy Advocate General, as also learned counsel representing the respondents and gone through the record. 15. We find ourselves in agreement with the findings of learned trial Court that the stumps found on Government land and some private land, other than the land in respect of which applications were moved, do not stand connected with the trees that were marked on the private land of 10 applicants. PW-22 Liaq Ram, Range Officer and PW-23 Khiyali Ram, Block Officer, who, on the basis of demarcation given by PW-20 Abhey Pant counted the stumps on Government land very categorically testified that most of stumps were decayed and rotten and hammer mark was not decipherable and also the stumps were very old. Now, when the hammer mark, which was supposed to have been embossed on the trees by the accused-respondents Satya Dev Sharma, Bir Singh, Kewal Ram, Devi Ram, Forest Officials, was not available on the stumps counted on Government land and the private land, other than the land described in the applications, it cannot be said that the stumps so found on Government land and private land were of the trees marked by the aforesaid four Forest Officials, who are accused in this case. 16. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the fact that there were only 305 stumps, on the land on which trees were shown to have been marked, itself is enough to jump to the conclusion that the rest of the trees were marked on Government land. Prosecution itself examined most of the private land owners, on whose land trees were marked. They testified that most of the stumps of the felled trees had been uprooted by them, in the process of making the land cultivable. 17. Prosecution examined two persons, both by the name of Lachhi Ram, whose thumb impressions are alleged to be forged on their applications/affidavits. They are: PW-8 Lachhi Ram, S/o Shri Mohtu and PW-82 Lachhi Ram, S/o Shri Bhuru. Both of them stated that they had sold the trees standing on their land and thumb impressed the papers in favour of deceased Mohi Ram and accused Murti Ram for obtaining permission to fell the trees. 18. They are: PW-8 Lachhi Ram, S/o Shri Mohtu and PW-82 Lachhi Ram, S/o Shri Bhuru. Both of them stated that they had sold the trees standing on their land and thumb impressed the papers in favour of deceased Mohi Ram and accused Murti Ram for obtaining permission to fell the trees. 18. Signatures of two persons by the names of Chhimba and Gangu, both sons of Shri Keshav and two other persons, named Kania and Dasia on their affidavits, are alleged to be forged. Prosecution did not examine Chhimba, Gangu and Dasia. It did examine Kania. He is PW-4. Though the witness denied that he had signed the papers for sale of trees, he did admit that the trees standing on the land, which was joint between him and his brothers Dasia, Haru, Dhian Singh and Sunder etc., had been sold to deceased Mohi Ram and accused Murti Ram and he had received his share of price. Thus, the charge of forgery also does not stand established. Timber, which was recovered during the investigation bearing Khudan mark of deceased Mohi Ram, accused Murti Ram and Vijay Kumar has not been connected with the timber extracted from the trees of this case, nor is there any other evidence indicating that the said timber was of illicit origin. 19. In view of the abovestated position, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed, by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.