Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 673 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Purshotam

2019-05-30

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, stands, directed by the State, against, the pronouncement made by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Una, H.P., upon, Criminal Case No. 85-I-03/39-III-03, whereunder, the accused/respondents herein hence stood acquitted. 2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that on 11.2.2003, SI Ruldu Ram along with other police officials had laid a Nakka at Pirnigaha Road near “Satsang Ghar”. At about 11 a.m. a tempo bearing No. HP-19A-0393 covered with tarpaulin came from Basoli side, which was stooped. It was occupied by its driver and one another person. The tempo was checked after removing the tarpaulin and on checking logs of Khair Heat Wood were found in the same. The person sitting in the tempo disclosed his name to be Purshotam, and, the driver thereof disclosed his name to be Ashok Kumar. Accused Purshotam produced Parcha Hamrahi of 102.2003 for transporting 40 quintals of khair wood but the khair wood appeared to be in excess to the permit limit in the tempo and as such, the Investigating Officer, took the above said tempo to Mehatpur and got weight the said tempo in Prem (P) Ltd. Dharam Kanta and on weighment, the weight of tempo along with timbers was found 138 quintals and as such the Investigating Officer, seized the tempo along with timbers and Parcha Hamrahi vide separate memo. It was found that the permit was issued for carrying in the tempo 40 quintals of khair wood, whereas, 58 quintals of khair wood was being transported in the tempo. The rukka was prepared on the spot and was sent for registration of the FIR to the police station concerned, on the basis of which FIR was registered in the police station concerned against the accused. Thereafter the police completed all the codal formalities. 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused/respondents herein stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, theirs committing offences, punishable under Sections 41, and, 42 of the Indian Forest Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. 4. The accused/respondents herein stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, theirs committing offences, punishable under Sections 41, and, 42 of the Indian Forest Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the prosecution evidence, the statement (s) of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were, recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication in the case. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/ respondents herein. 6. The appellant herein/State, stands aggrieved, by the findings of acquittal, recorded, by the learned trial Court. The Additional Advocate General, has, concertedly and vigorously contended, qua the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal warranting reversal 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 appearing for the respondents, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal, recorded, by the learned trial Court, rather standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any 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 accused/respondents herein faced charge, for theirs, in tempo bearing No. HP-19A-0393, hence, illicitly carrying 58 qunitals of khair wood, despite, the apposite permit being issued to them, for, theirs carrying only 40 quintals, of, khair wood, in the tempo concerned. 10. 9. The accused/respondents herein faced charge, for theirs, in tempo bearing No. HP-19A-0393, hence, illicitly carrying 58 qunitals of khair wood, despite, the apposite permit being issued to them, for, theirs carrying only 40 quintals, of, khair wood, in the tempo concerned. 10. The learned Additional Advocate General, submits that, Purcha Hamrahi comprised, in Ex.PW4/B, whereunder, a permit stands issued, to the accused concerned, for carrying khair wood, upto, a weight of 40 quintals, though, is not ingrained with any aura of fictitiousness, (a) and, also further submits, that, the reason ascribed by the learned trial Court concerned, for dispelling the tenacity, of, the prosecution evidence, vis-a-vis, the relevant seizure, of, the afore khair wood, as stood, carried in the afore tempo by the accused concerned, hence, not suffering from any infirmity. However, he proceed to submits, that, the verdict of acquittal impugned before this Court rather merits interference, (b) as, the learned trial Court, has omitted to mete appropriate credence, vis-a-vis, the disclosure (s) made by co-accused Purshotam, in proceedings, drawn under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., (c) wherewithin, rather echoings emanate qua the permissible weight/capacity, to carry, hence, in the afore tempo, rather logs of khair wood, being only upto 40 quintals, (d) and, he submits that the afore admission, made by co-accused Purshotam, in the afore proceedings, obviously nailing the charge, against, the accused qua hence in excess of Ex.PW4/B, 58 quintals of khair wood log, being carried in the afore tempo. 11. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore submission canvassed before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General, for, constraining this Court, to, interfere with the impugned verdict, is rejected. 11. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore submission canvassed before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General, for, constraining this Court, to, interfere with the impugned verdict, is rejected. (a) The afore admission not per se working, vis-a-vis, the proof, of, charge, as it appertains, only to the permissible weight/capacity, embodied in Ex.PW4/B, to hence carry the afore khair wood, in the tempo concerned, (b) obviously it does not make any further admission, that, the quantity/weight of the khair wood, as stood, carried in the tempo concerned, rather ipso facto being in excess of the afore permissible weight, of, logs of the khair wood, to be carried, in the afore tempo, (c) rather the afore evidence was comprised in the prosecution, hence, citing the official concerned working, at Prem Pvt. Ltd. Dharamkanta, located, at Mehatpur, whereat the weight, of, logs as carried, in the afore tempo, hence, was conducted, (d) whereas, the afore official, not stepping to the witness box, to testify qua the logs, of, khair wood, as, carried in the afore tempo, hence, being in excess, of, the weight of logs, of, khair wood, as, permitted to be carried under “parcha hamrahi”, borne in Ex.PW4/B, (e) contrarily constrains an inference qua the prosecution case, qua the logs of khair wood, transported in the afore tempo, and, weight whereof being in excess of the permissible weight thereof, rather straightway failing nor it can be concluded that the learned trial Court, hence, failing to take into consideration the apposite, and, germane evidence, vis-a-vis, charge, and, as existing on record. 12. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court, 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 trial court, hence, not suffering from any gross perversity or absurdity of misappreciation, and, non appreciation of germane evidence on record. 13. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.