Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 879 (HP)

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Anuvind Sood

2017-07-28

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2017
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral) - All pending interlocutory application in this Regular Second Appeal will stand closed. By way of this appeal, State has challenged judgment passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali, in Criminal Case No. 90-1/03/5-III/03 dated 04.03.2006, vide which learned trial Court acquitted the accused for commission of offence punishable under sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that as per prosecution on the morning of 24.03.2003, at around 08.00 A.M., when a police party headed by SI Neel Chand was on Nakabandi as well as traffic duty at Baragran Bridge, it intercepted one vehicle bearing registration No. HP-58-0864, which was being driven by accused No. 1 Sohan Singh, in which co-accused Anuvind Sood was also sitting. When the said jeep was checked by the police, 20 wooden doors were recovered from the same. Accused Sohan Singh produced Bill No. 190 dated 23.03.2003 Ext. P-1 before the police party regarding 20 doors, value of which was disclosed as Rs. 36,000/- which was issued by M/S Ranu Furniture House. However, the accused was transporting the said wooden doors without transport permit. These wooden doors were accordingly seized vide seizure memo Ext. PW1/A. During the course of investigation, spot map Ext. PW7/C was prepared. Ruka Ext. PW7/A was sent to Police Station on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW7/B was registered against the accused. In the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., 1973 3. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, notice of accusation was put to them for commission of offence punishable under section 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined 7 witnesses to prove its case. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., 1973 wherein accused Sohan Singh admitted that he was transporting the said wooden doors in the jeep, whereas accused No. 2 i.e. present respondent took the plea that he had taken lift in the said jeep and he had nothing to do with the case property. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., 1973 wherein accused Sohan Singh admitted that he was transporting the said wooden doors in the jeep, whereas accused No. 2 i.e. present respondent took the plea that he had taken lift in the said jeep and he had nothing to do with the case property. Records demonstrate that after recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C., 1973 accused No. 1 did not turn up in the Court and he was declared as a proclaimed offender. 5. On the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution, learned trial Court vide its judgment under challenge acquitted accused No. 2 i.e. the present respondent for commission of offence under sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act by holding that there was no direct or indirect evidence against him on record that on the relevant date, time and place, he infurtherance with accused Sohan Singh was transporting the case property in the vehicle. Learned trial Court also held that all the prosecution witnesses had stated in one voice that accused Sohan Singh was driving the jeep and he in fact produced bill at the time when the said jeep was intercepted and nothing was disclosed by these witnesses about the role of accused No. 2 i.e. the present respondent. On these basis, it was concluded by learned trial Court that defence of accused No. 2 was liable to be accepted and further the prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 24.03.2003, at around 8.00 A.M., at place Baragran Bridge accused No. 2 Anuvind Sood was transporting 20 wooden doors in violation of law. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment so passed by learned trial Court, State has filed the present appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone thought the records of the case as well as judgment passed by learned trial Court. 8. As mentioned above, in order to prove its case prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses. Out of 7 witnesses, PW-2 HC Sharwan Kumar, PW-3 Constable Raman Kumar and PW-7 SI Neel Chand, were part of the police party. 8. As mentioned above, in order to prove its case prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses. Out of 7 witnesses, PW-2 HC Sharwan Kumar, PW-3 Constable Raman Kumar and PW-7 SI Neel Chand, were part of the police party. Therefore, it is necessary to scrutinize their statements in order to ascertain as to whether the findings of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court are borne out from the evidence on record or the same are perverse. 9. PW-2 HC Sharwan Kumar stated in the Court that on 24.03.2003 he along with HC Lal Singh, Constable Raman Kumar, Constable Mahender Pal, Constable Om Prakash, Home Guard Hira Lal and SI Neel Chand were on traffic checking duty at around at 08.00 A.M. at Baragran Bridge. He further deposed that at the relevant time one jeep Mahendra Pickup bearing registration No. HP-58-0864 came from Manali side which was signalled to stop. This vehicle was covered with tarpaulin. On suspicion, the vehicle was checked in which wooden doors were found loaded. Driver disclosed his name as Sohan Singh and the other person sitting in the jeep disclosed his name as Anuvind Sood. He further stated that Sohan Singh produced Bill No. 190 pertaining to the said doors dated 23.03.2003. He further stated that Ranu Furniture was having no authorization to manufacture doors and windows. He also stated that accused were not having any permission qua the doors and windows which were found loaded in the vehicle. 10. PW-3 Constable Raman Kumar also deposed to this effect. In his cross-examination, he stated that on that day when the said police party was on traffic checking duty, no vehicle was challaned under Motor Vehicles Act. He admitted the suggestion that during the period when the vehicle was intercepted and investigation etc. was carried out on the spot, 40-50 vehicles crossed the spot. He also stated that Investigating Officer did not make any effort to join any independent witnesses. He admitted it to be correct that there were shops of Pradhan Tota Ram, Badri Prakash and Prem Chand near Kalibasti. He stated that he was not aware that accused Sohan Singh was running a furniture shop at Manali. 11. PW-7 SI Neel Chand also stated in the Court about the police party being on patrol duty and interception of jeep in issue from which wooden furniture''s consisting of wooden doors and windows, was recovered. He stated that he was not aware that accused Sohan Singh was running a furniture shop at Manali. 11. PW-7 SI Neel Chand also stated in the Court about the police party being on patrol duty and interception of jeep in issue from which wooden furniture''s consisting of wooden doors and windows, was recovered. He deposed that the vehicle was being driven by accused Sohan Singh who produced bill Ext. P-1. Thereafter, he stated about the investigation etc. which was carried out at the spot after the seizure of the wooden furniture from the accused. In his cross-examination, he admitted that just at some distance from the bridge there were shops. He also admitted that at the spot there was traffic jam. He also admitted that he did not make any effort to join any independent witnesses. He also stated that in the course of his investigation it was not revealed that there was any report of theft made by officials of the Forest Department. 12. Now, a perusal of the statement of accused No. 2 recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., 1973 demonstrates that in answer to question No. 17 he had stated that a false case has been lodged against him and in fact, he took lift in the said jeep and had nothing to do with the case property. 13. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court demonstrates that the said Court acquitted accused No. 2 by holding that there was no material produced on record by the prosecution which could link the said accused with the commission of offence for which he was charged. I have carefully gone through the statements of prosecution witnesses, some of which have also been discussed above and I have also carefully gone through the records of the case. In my considered view, the findings so returned by learned trial Court in favour of accused No. 2 cannot be faulted with. This is for the reason that there is not even an iota of evidence on record from which it can be inferred that accused No. 2 infurtherance of common intention with accused No. 1 was transporting the alleged timber which was seized by the police party. The prosecution has not been able to link the accused with the timber which was being allegedly transported. The prosecution has not been able to link the accused with the timber which was being allegedly transported. It is not the case of the prosecution that the timber was being transported for accused No.2 or that it was being transported at the behest of accused No. 2. Therefore, in these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that there is lack of evidence on record placed by the prosecution connecting accused No. 2 with the commission of offence and the same thus probablises his defence that he had only taken lift in the jeep and had nothing to do with the timber which was allegedly seized from the vehicle in issue. 14. Besides this, it is settled principle of law that where the accused has the benefit of acquittal in his favour, then in an appeal, until and unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse and shakes the conscious of the Court, ordinarily the same should not be interfered with. In the present case, judgment passed by learned trial Court giving benefit of doubt to accused No. 2 is a reasoned judgment as the findings returned to this effect are not perverse but are duly borne out from the records of the case, as is evident from the discussion made in its judgment by learned trial Court. 15. In view of above discussion, while concurring with the findings recorded by learned trial Court, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.