Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 515 (HP)

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Mansa Ram

2013-06-10

RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment, dated 30th January, 2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 03/2 of 2002, whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 26, 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 8th August, 2001, SI/SHO Lal Man Sharma (PW11) alongwith HC Gurdayal Singh (PW1), LHC Iqbal Singh, Constable Babu Ram (PW7) and driver HHC Tej Ram were on patrolling duty in Government jeep bearing registration No. HP-18-0233 at Minus. At about 3.30 a.m., while they were returning and reached near rain shelter Kando Bhatnol, they saw one tractor going towards Shillai, in which timber was loaded. On seeing the police, two-three persons jumped from the tractor and ran away towards jungle by taking advantage of darkness. Thereafter, the tractor was stopped. The driver disclosed his name to be Mansa Ram (accused). He also disclosed names of the other accused persons who ran away from the tractor. 3. 11 logs of timber were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PW1/A. Ruka, Ex. PW11/A, was sent to the police station, on the basis of which FIR, EX. PW11/B, was registered. The timber was handed over on supurdari to Forest Guard Bali Ram (PW3) vide supurdari memo, Ex. PW3/A. The papers of the tractor were also taken into possession. The saw and axe were recovered from accused Chamel Singh vide recovery memo, Ex. PW7/A. The matter was investigated by the police. The challan was put up after completing the codal formalities. 4. The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They pleaded their innocence. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class acquitted the accused-respondents on 30th January, 2006. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons. 6. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-accused, has supported the judgment of acquittal, dated 30th January, 2006. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons. 6. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-accused, has supported the judgment of acquittal, dated 30th January, 2006. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. PW1, HC Gurdayal Singh, has deposed that on 07.08.2001, at about 9.00 p.m., he had laid a naka at Minus alongwith SHO Lal Man, LHC Iqbal, Constable Babu Lal and driver Tej Ram. According to him, when they were coming back and reached near Kando Bhatnol, they saw a tractor going ahead of them. Two of the occupants of the tractor ran away on seeing the police. The name of the driver was Mansa Ram. He disclosed the names of the other accused. The timber was taken into possession vide Ex. PW1/A. He has admitted, in his cross-examination, that the area, from where the timber was apprehended, was thickly populated. He has also admitted, in his cross-examination, that the timber has not been shown to him in the Court. He has volunteered that it was handed over on supurdari. He did not know who has taken the Ruka to the police station. According to him, the timber was measured by the employees of Forest Department. 9. PW2, Kanthi Ram, has deposed that he did not know anything about the case. He was declared hostile. 10. PW3, Bali Ram, has deposed that he has prepared the damage report, Ex. PW3/B. The eleven logs of deodar were handed over to him vide supurdari memo, Ex. PW3/A. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that one the accused, Inder Singh, has not signed the damage report. He has also admitted that the timber was auctioned in the year 2004. 11. PW6, Jagdish Prakash, has prepared his report, Ex. PW6/A, with aksh shajra, Ex. PW6/B. 12. PW7, Constable Babu Ram, has deposed that Chamel Singh, one of the accused, has handed over one axe and a saw to the police vide Ex. PW7/A, and he has signed the memo. 13. PW11, Lal Man, was the investigating officer in the present case. He has deposed the manner in which the tractor was apprehended. According to him, he has prepared Ruka, Ex. PW7/A, and he has signed the memo. 13. PW11, Lal Man, was the investigating officer in the present case. He has deposed the manner in which the tractor was apprehended. According to him, he has prepared Ruka, Ex. PW11/A, after taking the timber into possession and the same was sent through Constable Babu Lal, on the basis of which FIR, Ex. PW11/B, was registered. According to him, the timber was measured by the police personnel. He has also admitted that he could not recognise two persons, who ran away from the spot. 14. According to the case of the prosecution, HC Gurdayal Singh (PW1), Constable Babu Ram (PW7), Investigating Officer, SI Lal Man (PW11), LHC Iqbal and HHC Tej Ram were present on the spot. However, the prosecution has examined only HC Gurdayal Singh, Constable Babu Ram and SI Lal Man. LHC Iqbal and HHC Tej Ram were the material witnesses. But, they have not been examined by the prosecution. 15. PW1, HC Gurdayal Singh, has admitted that the area was thickly populated from where the tractor was apprehended. However, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses. PW1 has not recognised the timber. He did not know who has taken Ruka, Ex. PW11/ A, to the police station. 16. According to PW11, SI Lal Man, Ruka was handed over to PW7, Babu Ram, on the basis of which FIR, Ex. PW11/B, was registered. However, Babu Ram, while appeared as PW7 has not deposed that he has taken the Ruka to the police station. PW7, Babu Ram, has remained on the spot, but has not stated anything regarding the manner in which the tractor and the timber were seized. 17. According to PW3, Bali Ram, the timber was measured by the employees of the Forest Department. However, PW11, SI Lal Man, has deposed that the timber was measured by the police personnel. 18. The timber was handed over to PW3, Bali Ram, vide Ex. PW3/A. He has also issued damage report, Ex. PW3/B. He has not obtained signatures of one of the accused on the damage report. 19. The prosecution has not produced the timber before the Court. PW3, Bali Ram, Forest Guard, has admitted that though the timber was seized in the year 2001, but the same was auctioned in the year 2004. This could not be done by the prosecution without seeking the liberty of the Court. 19. The prosecution has not produced the timber before the Court. PW3, Bali Ram, Forest Guard, has admitted that though the timber was seized in the year 2001, but the same was auctioned in the year 2004. This could not be done by the prosecution without seeking the liberty of the Court. The timber should have been produced before the Court for proper identification by the witnesses. 20. PW11, SI Lal Man, the investigating officer, has not identified the accused persons who had ran away from the spot. The names of the accused persons have only been disclosed by the driver, Mansa Ram, later on. 21. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this Court will not interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Court. 22. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged.