Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2042 (HP)

State Of H P v. Man Singh

2018-11-20

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The present appeals arise of a common judgment, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, upon Cr. Appel No. 25 of 2008, alongwith connected appeals, decided on 5.5.2010, hence the same are disposed of vide a common verdict. 2. The instant appeals stand directed by the State, against, the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, in Cr. Appeals No. 25 of 2008, Cr. Appeal No. 26 of 2008 and Cr. Appeal No. 27 of 2008, whereunder, he returned findings of acquittal, upon, the respondents/accused in respect of charges framed, under, Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC, and, under Section 41 and under Section 42, of, the Indian Forest Act. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 3.9.2001 at about 3:30 a.m. police party headed by ASI Som Dutt was present at Jai-nullah, Manikaran. At that time, a tractor came from the side of Suma Ropa which was searched and police found thirty scants of deodar wood of different dimensions. In the tractor three persons were found sitting and their names when ascertained, they disclosed their names as Man Singh, Chander Sen and Chaman Lal, the present respondents. On the failure of these persons to produce permit for transportation of the said timer, the police took into possession said timber along with tractor. The seized timber was later on handed over on Spurdari to DFO, Parwati Division, Shamshi. 3. On conclusion of investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the Court concerned. 4. The accused/respondents were charged by the learned trial Court, for, their committing offence(s) punishable under Sections 379 read with Section 34 IPC and under Sections 41 and under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act. In proof of the charge, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused/respondents, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were, recorded by the trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of conviction against the accused/appellant herein. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of conviction against the accused/appellant herein. However, the learned first appellate Court, set aside, the judgment rendered by the trial Court, and rather returned the findings of acquittal, upon, the accused/respondents. 6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned first appellate Court. The learned Additional Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned first appellate Court, standing, not, based on a proper appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, rather, theirs'' standing sequelled by gross misappreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction AND theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel(s), appearing for the respondents/accused have with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below, standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The learned Additional Advocate General, has contended, that with the prosecution proving all the recitals borne in Ext. PW2/A, whereunder 30 scants of various sizes, as elucidated therein, stood recovered, (a) AND also the tractor, whereon, the, afore scants stood carried, also standing recovered under seizure memo, comprised in memo Ext. PW1/A, b) AND with the afore memos also standing efficaciously proven, by the witnesses thereto, and, the accused not denying their signatures, as borne therein, c) and with the prosecution also proving Ext. PW2/A, exhibit whereof, comprises, the, Spurdari memo, d) thereupon with the prosecution firmly proving the charge against the accused, hence entailed the recording, of, findings, of acquittal, by the learned trial Court, upon all the accused. 10. The aforesaid submission addressed before this Court, by the learned Additional Advocate General, carries immense vigor. PW2/A, exhibit whereof, comprises, the, Spurdari memo, d) thereupon with the prosecution firmly proving the charge against the accused, hence entailed the recording, of, findings, of acquittal, by the learned trial Court, upon all the accused. 10. The aforesaid submission addressed before this Court, by the learned Additional Advocate General, carries immense vigor. However the effect of the aforesaid submission, is, wholly enfeebled, by the factum, of, the mandatory statutory, provisions, borne in Section 52, (3)(a), of the Indian Forest Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: "[Himachal Pradesh]-In its application to the State of Himachal Pradesh, in S. 52- (3) Every Officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such prioperty a mark indicating that the same has been seized, and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such of seizure; (a) where the offence, on account of which the seizure has been made, is in respect of timber (excluding fuelwood, resin, khair wood, and katha, which is the property of the State Government, to the concerned authorized officer under Sub-Section (1) of Section 52-A. (i) whereunder, a preemptory/statutory duty, stood cast upon the seizing officer concerned, to, upon the seized timber, hence affix the apt seizure mark, (i) mandatory phraseology wherewithin the apt afore extracted statutory provisions are couched also hence enjoining strict compliance therewith, (iii) whereas ex-facie want, of, strict compliance therewith, obviously entails an inference qua the prosecution, on account, of, apposite statutory lapse(s), rather failing to connect the recoveries, purportedly made through memos Ext. PW1/A, and, Ext.PW2/A, rather hence occurring from, the possession of the accused. 11. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned appellate Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record. 12. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeals which are accordingly dismissed. The Judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.