ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 16.11.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2012 (27 of 11) whereby the judgment and sentence passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul & Spiti, Camp at Kullu on 01.04.2011 in case No. 193-I/2006 was affirmed. 2. The petitioner was charged for commission of offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 19.05.2006 he was illicitly transporting fourteen sleepers of Deodar wood without valid pass or permit and was apprehended at Forest Check Post, Larji at about 4.00 A.M. PW-3 Bansi Ram was posted as Block Officer (for short ‘BO’) at Forest Check Post, Larji. He had informed the Divisional Forest Officer (for short ‘DFO’), Banjar, who further informed the police. An investigating team of police reached the spot. The vehicle bearing No. HP-02-0694 alongwith timber was seized vide memo Ext.PW-2/A. The timber was handed over to PW-3 Bansi Ram on sapurdari vide document Ext.PW-2/B. Rukka Ext. PW-5/A was prepared by HC Hari Ram and was sent to Police Station for registration of FIR through PW-1 C. Guddu Ram. FIR Ext. PW-5/B was registered. PW-3 prepared the assessment report of the value of seized timber vide Ext. PW-3/A. The petitioner was arrested and later released on bail. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. Prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case. PW-2 Lal Singh, Chowkidar and PW-4 Tikam Ram, Timber Watcher, were the persons who were on duty at Forest Check Post, Larji on the relevant day and had allegedly apprehended vehicle No. HP-02-0694 driven by petitioner at 4.00 A.M. and had found the illicit timber being transported in the said vehicle. PW-3 Bansi Ram was the B.O. posted at Forest Check Post, Larji. He informed the DFO, Banjar and had also valued the timber seized from the petitioner. PW-1 C. Guddu Ram had visited the spot alongwith HC Hari Singh to investigate the matter. PW-5 ASI Chaman Lal proved the receipt of rukka and registration of FIR. 4. Petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not choose to lead defence evidence. He informed the DFO, Banjar and had also valued the timber seized from the petitioner. PW-1 C. Guddu Ram had visited the spot alongwith HC Hari Singh to investigate the matter. PW-5 ASI Chaman Lal proved the receipt of rukka and registration of FIR. 4. Petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not choose to lead defence evidence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul & Spiti, Camp at Kullu acquitted the petitioner for offence under Section 379 IPC, but convicted him for commission of offence under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 5. Petitioner assailed the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court before learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, but remained unsuccessful. Learned Appellate Court affirmed the findings and sentence returned and imposed by the learned trial Court. State did not assail the acquittal of petitioner under Section 379 IPC. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. As per the case of prosecution, the petitioner was illicitly transporting 14 sleepers of Deodar wood in Maruti Van No. HP-02-0694 and was apprehended on 19.05.2006 at about 4.00 A.M. by the officials of Forest Check Post, Larji. PW-3 Bansi Ram was the B.O. posted at Forest Check Post, Larji on 19.05.2006. He was examined as PW-3. It was stated by this witness that on 19.05.2006 at about 4.00 A.M. the vehicle No. HP-02-0694 came from the Banjar side. Chowkidar stopped the vehicle and checked the same. 14 illicit scants of Deodar were found. He informed the DFO, Banjar. The petitioner was the driver of the vehicle and could not produce any pass or permit. The DFO later informed the police. Investigating team of the police reached the spot. Timber was measured. Police seized the timber and handed over the same to DFO, Banjar. PW-3 on the same day evaluated the timber at Rs.24,610/- vide his report Ext.PW-3/A. The report was handed over to the police. He also identified his signatures on document Ext. PW-2/B vide which the timber was handed over to PW-3 on sapurdari. Timber was measured. Police seized the timber and handed over the same to DFO, Banjar. PW-3 on the same day evaluated the timber at Rs.24,610/- vide his report Ext.PW-3/A. The report was handed over to the police. He also identified his signatures on document Ext. PW-2/B vide which the timber was handed over to PW-3 on sapurdari. He had also affixed seizure hammer on the timber and had taken facsimile of the same vide Ext. PW-3/B. In cross-examination PW-3 stated that he had informed the DFO at 4.15 A.M. Police had reached at about 7.00 A.M. on their vehicle. Police stayed on spot till 2.00 P.M. There were shops and residential houses near the Forest Check Post, Larji. He also submitted that there was a petrol pump in front of Check Post which used to remain open around the clock. The vehicular traffic was frequent on the spot. He admitted that when the vehicle was apprehended many people had gathered on the spot. The documents were prepared with respect to handing over of vehicle on sapurdari to DFO. He denied the suggestion that vehicle No. HP-02-0694 was lying abandoned and a false case was planted against the petitioner. He also admitted that police had not make any effort to associate independent witnesses. 8. PW-2 Lal Singh was the Chowkidar, who had stopped the vehicle No. HP-02-0694 for checking at Forest Check Post, Larji. This witness also stated that vehicle was being driven by the petitioner and 14 scants of illicit timber were found in the vehicle. According to this witness, police had taken the vehicle and the timber in possession vide Ext. PW-2/A and further the timber was handed over on sapurdari to PW-3 Bansi Ram vide memo Ext. PW-2/B. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that there was a petrol pump in front of the Forest Check Post, Larji which remained open around the clock. There were school, bank and shops near to the check post. He further admitted that vehicular traffic remains constant on the spot. He feigned ignorance as to time of arrival of police. He also stated that no proceeding was conducted in his presence. According to this witness, his duty was till 8.00 A.M. whereafter he had gone to his residence. He further deposed that he had signed Ext. PW-2/A and Ext. PW-2/B at 6.00 A.M. on 19.5.2006. He feigned ignorance as to time of arrival of police. He also stated that no proceeding was conducted in his presence. According to this witness, his duty was till 8.00 A.M. whereafter he had gone to his residence. He further deposed that he had signed Ext. PW-2/A and Ext. PW-2/B at 6.00 A.M. on 19.5.2006. This witness had also stated that no proceedings were conducted in his presence and he had left for his residence at 8.00 A.M. 9. PW-4 Tikam Ram stated that at 4.00 A.M. on 19.5.2006 he was on duty at Forest Check Post, Larji. Vehicle No. HP-02-0694 was stopped by him and the said vehicle was being driven by petitioner. 14 scants of Deodar were recovered from the vehicle. Block Officer was called on the spot. Petitioner could not produce any pass or permit. B.O. informed the DFO. Police came on spot and seized the van and timber vide Ext. PW-2/A. The timber was handed over to PW-3 Bansi Ram on sapurdari vide Ext. PW-2/B. In cross-examination, this witness stated that police had reached on spot at 6.00 A.M. and had taken about one and half hour for completing the proceedings. Petitioner was arrested by the police at 6.00 A.M. He also admitted that there are shops and market near the Forest Check Post. The shops were open at the relevant time. 10. Adverting to the statement of PW-1 C. Guddu Ram. This witness stated that an information was received at Police Station, Banjar from DFO at 9.00 A.M. on 19.5.2006. He alongwith H.C. Hari Singh left for the spot. PW-3 B.O. Bansi Ram handed over the vehicle No.HP-02-0694 and the illicit timber to the police. Petitioner was also found sitting near the vehicle and he could not produce the vehicle’s documents as well as pass or permit in respect of the timber. Vehicle alongwith its key and the timber were taken in possession. Investigating Officer has prepared the rukka and handed over to him for being taken to the Police Station for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he had handed over the file to the I.O. on spot. Vehicle alongwith its key and the timber were taken in possession. Investigating Officer has prepared the rukka and handed over to him for being taken to the Police Station for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he had handed over the file to the I.O. on spot. In cross-examination, he deposed that he alongwith H.C. Hari Singh had reached the spot at about 10 A.M. He had left the spot with rukka at about 12.30 P.M. The factum of existence of petrol pump in front of the Forest Check Post was also admitted by this witness. 11. The statement of PW-5 is only to the effect that he had received rukka and FIR Ext. PW-5/B was registered on its basis. 12. From the statements of prosecution witnesses, it is clear that they had contradicted each other on material aspect. As per the prosecution case, the vehicle No. HP-02- 0694 and timber was seized vide document Ext. PW-2/A. PW2 Lal Singh and PW-4 Tikam Ram have signed Ext. PW-2/A as witnesses. As per PW-1, police had reached the spot at 10.00 A.M. Meaning thereby that documents Ext. PW-2/A and Ext.PW-2/B were prepared after arrival of the police on spot. PW-2 one of the witness to aforesaid documents had stated that he had signed the said documents at 6.00 A.M. PW-4 Tikam Ram stated that the police had reached the spot at 6.00 A.M. and had completed the proceedings within one and half hour. The petitioner was also stated to have been arrested at 6.00 A.M. by the police. 13. Learned trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court had brushed aside the above noticed contradictions being minor in nature and also on the ground that the human memory cannot be expected to work like video recorder. The discrepancies and contradictions, as noticed above, in the considered view of this Court, could not have been ignored. PW-2 and PW-4 were the forest officials, who had allegedly apprehended the vehicle with illicit timber. They were categoric in their examination-in-chief that both of them had stopped the vehicle at 4.00 A.M. at Check Post. Once they had not forgotten the time of apprehending the vehicle, it was unlikely that subsequent sequence of events would be forgotten by them. PW-2 and PW-4 were the forest officials, who had allegedly apprehended the vehicle with illicit timber. They were categoric in their examination-in-chief that both of them had stopped the vehicle at 4.00 A.M. at Check Post. Once they had not forgotten the time of apprehending the vehicle, it was unlikely that subsequent sequence of events would be forgotten by them. PW-2 and PW-4 were in unison in respect of the fact that the police had arrived at 6.00 A.M. PW-2 had no confusion in saying that he was on duty till 8.00 A.M. and thereafter had left for his residence. 14. The prosecution case is that the information was received at Police Station, Banjar from DFO at 9.00 A.M. FIR Ext. PW-5/B also reveals the same fact. 15. The above noted contradictions gains significance in light of the fact that Investigating Officer had not been examined during the trial. It is for the Investigating Officer to have explained the discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Another fact which cannot be ignored is that there is nothing on record to show the whereabouts of the vehicle allegedly involved in the offence. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer had not placed on record any material to show the ownership of the vehicle. There was also no evidence to suggest as to in what capacity the petitioner was in possession of the vehicle. Again these facts were to be explained by the Investigating Officer. The vehicle No. HP-02-0694 was taken in possession by the police vide Ext. PW-2/A. What happened thereafter to the vehicle remained in realm of suspense. There is nothing on record of the trial Court that the vehicle was got released by any person during the pendency of the case or thereafter. In fact, there is absolutely no clue about the vehicle taken in possession by the police vide Ext.PW-2/A. This again had to be explained by the Investigating Officer. 16. Learned trial Court and learned Appellate Court both have ignored the implications arising out of non-examination of the Investigating Officer. Though such non-examination will not be fatal to the prosecution story in every case, but in the facts of instant case his non-examination has serious implications. 17. In cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, it was suggested on behalf of the petitioner that the vehicle No. HP02-0694 was lying abandoned near the Forest Check Post and the case was planted. Though such non-examination will not be fatal to the prosecution story in every case, but in the facts of instant case his non-examination has serious implications. 17. In cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, it was suggested on behalf of the petitioner that the vehicle No. HP02-0694 was lying abandoned near the Forest Check Post and the case was planted. In view of such defence, it was all the more important for prosecution to have produced the Investigating Officer for answering material questions. Thus, an adverse inference for non-examination of Investigating Officer ought to have been drawn against the prosecution. 18. Needless to say that the prosecution carries a heavy burden to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is the duty of the prosecution and especially of the I.O. of the case to satisfy the conscience of the Court by negating the chances of suspicion arising in the facts of the case. In the instant case, prosecution had failed to discharge the requisite burden. 19. There is yet another aspect which cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution story. All the prosecution witnesses have stated that there was a petrol pump in front of the Forest Check Post which remained open round the clock. In addition, there were shops and residences around. Even the people had gathered on the spot when the vehicle was apprehended and the police carried investigation. Why the independent witnesses were not associated again had to be explained by the I.O. It is evident from the statement of PW-1 that no effort was made to associate independent witnesses. Such association definitely would have afforded credence to the prosecution story. 20. When the B.O. had allegedly informed the DFO at 4.15 A.M., why the police was not informed immediately has also remained unexplained. DFO, Banjar was not even cited as a prosecution witness. 21. Petitioner alongwith vehicle and illicit timber was allegedly apprehended by forest officials at 4.00 A.M. Police arrived at the spot at 10.00 A.M. Police believed the version as given to them by the forest officials, no effort was made to seek independent corroboration. 22. Thus, there remained several unexplained discrepancies in the prosecution case and were sufficient to entertain a suspicion as to its authenticity. Once the doubts were created in the prosecution story, the benefit ought to have been given to the petitioner. 23. 22. Thus, there remained several unexplained discrepancies in the prosecution case and were sufficient to entertain a suspicion as to its authenticity. Once the doubts were created in the prosecution story, the benefit ought to have been given to the petitioner. 23. In view of the above discussion, the conviction of petitioner ordered by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned Appellate Court, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. Judgment dated 16.11.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2012 (27 of 11) affirming judgment and sentence passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul & Spiti, Camp at Kullu on 01.04.2011 in case No. 193-I/2006, are set-aside. Petitioner is acquitted of all the charges. The revision stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s) if any.