Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1865 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Bagga Ram

2015-12-11

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This appeal is instituted by the State against Judgment dated 1.6.2006, rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in Case No. 90/3 of 2000/98, whereby respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offence under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act and Sections 3, 4 and 16 of Land Preservation Act, have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 3.5.1998 Inspector/SHO Kashmiru Ram alongwith HC Prakash Chand and Constable Amar Nath was present at Excise & Taxation Barrier Naina Devi Chowk, Ghawandal. At about 1.35 am, one truck came from Bhakra side towards Ghawandal. It was stopped. Driver disclosed his name as Lajpat Singh. Truck No. HP-24-2555 was searched. It was carrying 105 hard wood logs of Khair trees. Export permit and other documents were not shown by the driver, on which excise barrier inspector Ram Dass Premi and Rakesh Singh, watchman were called on the spot and logs were counted. Bagga Ram told that he had cut the logs from his own land. No permit of 105 logs was produced. Case was registered against the accused. During the course of investigation, police visited the spot and prepared spot map. One hard wood log was recovered from the house of Bagga Ram. He had cut 17 trees from his own land with the help of labourers Gurbachan Singh and Gurcharan Singh and also unbarked by them. Spot, from where trees were cut, was inspected by the Forest Department. Demarcation was conducted by the Revenue Department. Investigation was completed and challan was put up after completion of all codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Accused were also examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They pleaded innocence. Accused were acquitted. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate has supported judgment dated 1.6.2006. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Ram Dass deposed that in the year 1998, he was posted as Excise & Taxation Inspector at Naina Devi Ji. On 3.5.1998 at about 1.35 am, he alongwith Rakesh Kumar was posted at Barrier. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Ram Dass deposed that in the year 1998, he was posted as Excise & Taxation Inspector at Naina Devi Ji. On 3.5.1998 at about 1.35 am, he alongwith Rakesh Kumar was posted at Barrier. One truck came from the side of Bhakra bearing registration No. HP-24-2555. Police searched the truck. They were also summoned. Truck was carrying 105 logs of Khair hard wood. Owner of the truck was Lajpat Singh and Driver was Bagga. Truck alongwith wood was taken into possession vide Ext. PW-1/A. Truck was unloaded and logs were counted. He did not know who unloaded the truck. Nothing has happened in his presence. Thereafter, truck was taken to Police Station Kot. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not know who was driving the truck at the relevant time. He had only seen the truck. He did not know who was the author of Ext. PW-1/A. He has not seen any mark on the log. 8. PW-2 Gurbachan Singh deposed that he was an agriculturist by profession. He had cut trees from the land of Bagga Ram. There were 17 trees. He used to get `60 per day. He has worked for 7 days. Police has come on the spot alongwith Forest Guard. Trees and logs were counted. They have not placed any log in the room of Bagga Ram. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned APP. In his cross-examination by the learned APP, he has disowned portion ‘A to A’ of his statement Mark X. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has cut trees at the instance of Ranjit Singh Contractor. He also admitted that he did not know who was owner of the land, from where he has cut the trees. 9. PW-3 Sardeep Singh deposed that on 11.5.1998, truck bearing registration No. HP-24-2555 was unloaded. Volunteered, that logs were weighed with the help of a weighing machine. 10. PW-4 Bishan Dass deposed that the accused has not given demarcation of land in the presence of the police. He was declared hostile. He reiterated in his cross-examination by the learned APP that neither before him nor before Jagat Ram, demarcation was carried out. 11. PW-5 Jaimal Chand deposed that he was working as a Patwari in the year 1998. PW-4 Bishan Dass deposed that the accused has not given demarcation of land in the presence of the police. He was declared hostile. He reiterated in his cross-examination by the learned APP that neither before him nor before Jagat Ram, demarcation was carried out. 11. PW-5 Jaimal Chand deposed that he was working as a Patwari in the year 1998. He alongwith Office Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar has carried out demarcation of the spot where Bagga Ram has cut trees. It was carried out at the instance of the police. This land was found to be owned and possessed by Bagga Ram. Report is Ext. PW-5/A. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that that the family of Bagga Ram for the last 6-7 years has shifted near Anandpur Sahib and they were not residing in their ancestral village. Their land was being cultivated by other persons. 12. PW-6 Ranjit Singh deposed that documents of the truck were taken into possession by the police on 4.6.1998 from the owner of the truck Shri Lajpat Singh. 13. PW-7 Mahender Lal deposed that he has gone to the Police Station Kot. Police weighed logs. Ext. PW3/A was prepared. He has signed the same. He did not know the name of wood. He has not seen the truck on the spot. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned APP. He did not know that there were 105 logs of Khair wood. He did not know the exact weight of the wood. He did not know accused Bagga. He disowned the portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of his statement mark ‘X’. 14. PW-8 Brij Lal deposed that he visited the spot with the police on 4.6.1998. Gurbachan and Gurcharan Singh have shown the spot from where 17 trees were cut. He has measured the stumps. Accused has not obtained any export permit. 15. PW-9 deposed that the demarcation of the spot was carried out while she was posted as Naib Tehsildar at Swarghat. Trees were cut from the private land. She prepared report Ext. PW-5/A. 16. PW-10 ASI Prakash Chand deposed that in the year 1998, he was posted at Kot Kehloor. He was present at Excise Barrier Ghawandal. A Truck came at 1.35 am from Bhakra side. It was signalled to stop. Driver disclosed his name as Lajpat. Truck was carrying 105 logs. She prepared report Ext. PW-5/A. 16. PW-10 ASI Prakash Chand deposed that in the year 1998, he was posted at Kot Kehloor. He was present at Excise Barrier Ghawandal. A Truck came at 1.35 am from Bhakra side. It was signalled to stop. Driver disclosed his name as Lajpat. Truck was carrying 105 logs. Accused Bagga Ram and Sukh Dev were also sitting in the truck. Excise & Taxation Inspector and Peon of Excise & Taxation Department were called. Accused could not produce document. There was no hammer mark on the logs. In his cross-examination, he admitted that one Jagat Ram and another person had come on the spot. 17. PW-12 Inspector Kashmiru Ram deposed that he was present at Excise Barrier at 1.35 am. Truck bearing registration No. HP-24-2555 came from Bhakra side. Truck was carrying 105 logs of hard wood. Truck was being driven by Lajpat. Logs were taken into possession. FIR was registered against the accused. In his cross-examination, he could not disclose at what time they left the Police Station on 3.5.1998. He did not remember whether they have gone in vehicle or on foot. He did not know at what time, they came back to the Police Station on 3.5.1998. He did not remember whether they came back to the Police Station in vehicle or on foot. He did not remember at what time truck left the spot and reached the Police Station. Accused was arrested at 12.30 pm on 3.5.1998. He did not remember whether the accused were released on bail at Ghawandal or at any other place. He has not prepared the arrest memo of the accused. He has admitted categorically that he has not arrested the accused from 1.35 am to 12.30 pm. He did not know in which direction truck was heading for. He has also admitted that he has put only one sample mark on the log wood on 11.5.1998. He has also admitted that he has not put any sample mark before 11.5.1998. He has admitted that sample of log was not shown to him in the examination-in- chief. PW-12 Kashmiru Ram was re-examined for identification of logs Ext. P1 and Ext. P2. In his cross-examination by the learned Advocate for the accused, he has admitted that on Ext. P1 and Ext. P2 mark ‘X’ was not present. 18. He has admitted that sample of log was not shown to him in the examination-in- chief. PW-12 Kashmiru Ram was re-examined for identification of logs Ext. P1 and Ext. P2. In his cross-examination by the learned Advocate for the accused, he has admitted that on Ext. P1 and Ext. P2 mark ‘X’ was not present. 18. PW-1 Ram Dass has categorically stated that he has not seen any mark on the logs. Only logs were counted before him. PW-2 Gurbachan Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution. He was declared hostile. He has disowned portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of his statement. He did not know who was owner of the land from which trees were cut. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that they have not put any logs in the room of accused Bagga Ram. PW-4 Bishan Dass has also not supported the case of the prosecution. He has denied that in his presence, demarcation was got conducted by the accused in the presence of police officials. PW-5 Jaimal Chand, in his cross-examination has admitted categorically that Bagga Ram and his family members were residing now near Anandpur Sahib and no one was residing in the ancestral village. PW-7 Mahender Lal has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Though he has admitted his signatures on Ext. PW-3/A. He did not know what was the species of wood. He has not seen the truck on the spot. PW-10 Prakash Chand admitted that one Jagat Ram and another person came on the spot. However, fact of the matter is that prosecution has not examined any independent witness though available on the spot at the time of search and seizure of the truck including logs. He deposed that he alongwith SHO had come to the Police Station on Motorcycle. However, PW-12 Kashmiru Ram did not know how they came to the spot and went back to the Police Station. According to him, three of them have come together to the spot and went back to the Police Station. PW-1 Ram Dass deposed that Bagga was driver however PW-10 Prakash Chand and PW-12 Kashmiru Ram deposed that Lajpat was the driver of the truck. It is surprising that SHO did not know how he came on the spot and left the spot. Truck was stopped at 1.35 am but arrest was made at 12.30 pm. PW-1 Ram Dass deposed that Bagga was driver however PW-10 Prakash Chand and PW-12 Kashmiru Ram deposed that Lajpat was the driver of the truck. It is surprising that SHO did not know how he came on the spot and left the spot. Truck was stopped at 1.35 am but arrest was made at 12.30 pm. PW-12 Kashmiru Ram did not know whether accused were granted bail at Ghawandal or at another place. He has not even prepared arrest memo of accused. He did not even know when the truck left the spot and reached the Police Station. Other vehicles were also plying on the road. The very fact that a barrier and Naka was put, presupposes that vehicles were plying at that point of time but occupants of such vehicles were not associated as independent witnesses. Case property was produced while examining PW-12 Kashmiru Ram. There was no mark on Ext. P1 and Ext. P2. Thus, the identification of the property was also not established by the prosecution. 19. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 20. In view of discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.