Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 834 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Munshi Ram

2019-07-02

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. By way of present appeal filed under S.377 Cr.P.C. challenge has been laid to judgment dated 11.6.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 31 of 2006, reversing judgment of conviction dated 25.8.2006 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chachiot at Gohar in I.F. Act No. 23-I/04/5-III/04, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the respondent-accused (hereinafter ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Ss. 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that on 31.1.2001, Padam Singh, Deputy Ranger, Joginder Singh and Thakur Singh, Forest Guards, and Jagat Ram and Dalip Singh Forest Workers laid a Naka on Dhangyara-Shalla Road near Village Karnala. A Fiat car bearing registration No. HIH-2009 came to be apprehended on the aforesaid Naka at about 11 pm. Allegedly, the driver of the car fled away from the spot, whereas, another occupant of the car, namely Munshi Ram (accused) came to be apprehended. Police on checking the aforesaid Car, recovered eight Deodar scants being carried in the aforesaid vehicle illegally without any valid permit. As per the prosecution case, accused disclosed to the police that Gian Chand was driver of the car. After completion of necessary codal formalities, Police registered a case against both the accused under Ss.41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. On completion of the investigation, Police presented a Challan in the competent Court of law i.e. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chachiot at Gohar, who being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, put notice of accusation to the accused for commission of offence punishable under Rule 20 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter ‘Rules’) framed under Ss.41 and 42 of the Act ibid, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case against the accused, examined as many as six witnesses, whereas, accused in their statements recorded under S.313 Cr.P.C. denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case against the accused, examined as many as six witnesses, whereas, accused in their statements recorded under S.313 Cr.P.C. denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed trial. Accused denied that on 31.1.2001, they were transporting eight scants of Deodar of different sizes in Car bearing registration No. HIH-2009, without there being any valid permit from any Forest Authority. Accused also adduced defence evidence by examining one Rakesh Kumar as DW-1. 4. Learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence collected on record by the prosecution, convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Rule 20 of the Rules and, accordingly sentenced them as per the description given herein above. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court, both the accused preferred appeals in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, who vide judgment dated 11.6.2009, partly allowed the appeal and acquitted Gian Chand, whereas modified the sentence of accused from simple imprisonment of six months to only fine, as awarded by the learned trial Court. In the aforesaid backdrop, appellant-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the impugned judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge and restoring the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the statements made by material prosecution witnesses, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while modifying the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court, this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the same, because, bare perusal of the evidence collected on record by prosecution, be it ocular or documentary, clearly reveals that the prosecution was unable to prove the identity of co-accused, who had fled away from the spot at the time of checking. 7. As per the case of the prosecution, Munshi Ram was found transporting eight scants without permit, in Car bearing registration No. HIH-2009. 8. Joginder Singh, Forest Guard PW-1, deposed that on the day of occurrence, he alongwith Padam Singh (PW-3), Thakur Singh, Forest Guard (PW-2) and Forest Workers Jagat Singh and Dalip Singh, had laid Naka, when, during the night time, a vehicle came from Dhangyara side, which was intercepted by them at Karnala. 8. Joginder Singh, Forest Guard PW-1, deposed that on the day of occurrence, he alongwith Padam Singh (PW-3), Thakur Singh, Forest Guard (PW-2) and Forest Workers Jagat Singh and Dalip Singh, had laid Naka, when, during the night time, a vehicle came from Dhangyara side, which was intercepted by them at Karnala. After intercepting the Car bearing registration No. HIH-2009, one person fled away from the spot and other person was apprehended on the spot, who disclosed his name as Munshi Ram. Vehicle was checked and same was found loaded with eight scants of Deodar of different sizes without any hammer mark. This witness further stated that the accused could not produce any document qua transportation of the aforesaid eight scants of Deodar. Aforesaid version put forth by this witness though came to be corroborated by prosecution witnesses namely Thakur Singh, Forest Guard (PW-2) and Padam Singh (PW-3), however, the Confessional Memo Ext. PW-1/B allegedly signed by the accused Munshi Ram and Gian Chand, never came to be proved in accordance with law. 9. Thakur Singh Forest Guard (PW-2) and Padam Singh (PW-3), failed to state that any such Confessional Memo was made by the accused Munshi Ram. If the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge is read in its entirety, it clearly reveals that despite there being failure on the part of the prosecution to prove Confessional Memo, Ext. PW-1/B, while placing reliance upon the testimony of Joginder Singh (PW-1), Thakur Singh (PW-2) and Padam Singh (PW-3) the learned Court below concurred with the findings of the learned trial Court that since Munshi Ram was apprehended with eight scants during night hours on the date in question, admission, if any, made by PW-2 and PW-3 that the accused Munshi ram did not make any Confessional Statement, shall not make any difference, as far as commission of offence alleged to have been committed by Munshi Ram (accused) is concerned. 10. 10. Though there is overwhelming evidence that for the purpose of carrying timber, rear seat of the car was removed and eight scants of timber were apprehended from the car in question in the presence of accused Munshi Ram, who at the time of alleged incident was found traveling in the car and, similarly, there is no dispute that the accused Munshi Ram was unable to produce any permit for transporting the Deodar scants, but this court having carefully scanned the statements of material prosecution witnesses, is in full agreement with Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution was unable to prove that Gian Chand was transporting the Deodar scants. Testimony of Joginder Singh, PW-1, Thakur Singh PW-2 and Padam Singh, PW-3 clearly reveals that the accused Gian Chand was not apprehended by them at the spot in the car, because, as per their own version, other occupant of the car had fled away from the place. Testimony of aforesaid witnesses, if read in conjunction, juxtaposing each other, same clearly suggests that the accused had told them that the person who had fled from the spot was accused Gian Chand, whereas, accused Munshi Ram in his statement, nowhere stated that the accused Gian Chand was the person, who was in the car. 11. Mere statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that the co-accused Munshi Ram had disclosed that another person in the Car was Gian Chand, is not sufficient to conclude the guilt, if any, of the co-accused Gian Chand. Moreover, none of the prosecution witnesses has stated that the accused Gian Chand was noticed by them before he fled from the spot, as such, learned Sessions Judge rightly concluded that in the absence of categorical and clear evidence, if any, led on record by the prosecution, that Gian Chand was the person, who fled from the spot, accused Gian Chand cannot be held guilty of having committed offence punishable under Rule 20 of the Rules. 12. As per version put forth by the prosecution witnesses, accused Munshi Ram told them that scants were purchased from one Shri Jiunu through Ghamanda, but said facts never came to be substantiated by any piece of evidence. It is not in dispute that the accused Gian Chand never came to be seen purchasing scants loaded in the car. 12. As per version put forth by the prosecution witnesses, accused Munshi Ram told them that scants were purchased from one Shri Jiunu through Ghamanda, but said facts never came to be substantiated by any piece of evidence. It is not in dispute that the accused Gian Chand never came to be seen purchasing scants loaded in the car. In the case at hand, prosecution has miserably failed to prove source of timber from where same was purchased by accused Munshi Ram but, since Deodar scants were recovered from the car and the same were being transported without any permit, learned Sessions Judge, rightly did not interfere with the findings returned by learned trial Court that since accused Munshi Ram was found transporting eight scants of Deodar in car on the relevant day, he is liable to be punished for having committed offence punishable under Rule 20 of the Rules. 13. As has been noticed herein above, that there is no evidence collected on record by the prosecution to the effect that the accused Munshi Ram illegally cut the tree and thereafter converted the same into scants and the only evidence adduced on record against the accused is that he was illegally transporting Deodar scants in a car, as such, learned Sessions Judge rightly modified the sentence awarded to him from imprisonment to only fine. 14. In view of above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with judgment dated 11.6.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 31 of 2006, which is accordingly upheld. In result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by accused are discharged. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.