State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gumat Ram and Another

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 7.12.2002 passed by the learned SDJM, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Shri Payaroo Ram, Forest Guard, Incharge of Parkhol beat, Tachi Range was on patrolling duty in Darangal D.P.F. alongwith Shyam Singh, Forest Guard, Dharam Singh, Deputy Ranger, B.O. Daher and Shri Keshav Ram son of Shri Bala Ram. Shri Payaroo Ram PW-1 found that one Deodar tree had been cut in the forest and was lying on the spot. Two persons were converting the Deodar tree into logs and sleepers. They were caught red handed by the officials. Thereafter damage report Ext. PW1/A was issued by PW-1 Payaroo Ram and the accused made a confessional statement Ext.PW-1/B in the presence of witnesses Keshav Ram and Tedhi Singh. The timber was taken into possession and after completing the investigation, complaint was filed in court. The accused after trial have been acquitted by the learned trial court on the following grounds:

Firstly there are major contradictions in the statements of official witnesses themselves;

Secondly, the independent witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case and;

Thirdly, that the presence of PW-5 Dharam Singh at the spot appears to be doubtful.

According to the case set up by the prosecution, PW Dharam Singh, who was the Deputy Ranger/Block Officer, was present when the raid took place. He was the senior most amongst the officials present. While appearing in court as PW-1, Payaroo Ram does not make any mention of PW-5 Dharam Singh being present at the spot. Shri Shyam Singh PW-2, Forest Guard, however, states that Dharam Singh was present alongwith them when they were in the forest. However, the statement of PW-5 Dharam Singh is totally different. In his examination-in-chief he does not say a word that he was on patrolling duty. He only stated that the damage report was issued by Payaroo Ram and he signed the same. Thereafter the confessional statements of accused were recorded by him which are Ext.PW-5/A. In cross-examination he admitted that he did not take possession of any timber, saw and axe from the accused. He stated that PW-1 Payaroo Ram had recovered the same which makes it apparent that this witness was not present at the spot.

The two independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and according to them the confessional statements were signed in the office and not at the spot. This version appears to be correct, since PW-5 Dharam Singh could not state anything as to what had happened at the spot. It is, therefore, obvious that the confessional statements were recorded lateron in the office and not at the spot. This totally belies the prosecution version.

From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the accused were not apprehended at the spot. Some timber may have been seized at the spot and the forest officials may have come to know about the timber having been cut. As held by the learned trial court the accused were not apprehended at the spot itself. The circumstances stated in the confessional statements have not been proved on record. The defence that the accused were induced to sign the same at a later stage cannot be said to be totally false. Therefore, the learned trial court was justified in acquitting the accused.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.