State of Himachal Pradesh vs Kamaljeet Chandel and Others

Kuldip Singh, J.—This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 19.11.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, in Criminal Case No. 123-I/03/97 acquitting the Respondents with liberty to the prosecution to get proceedings concluded u/s 299 Code of Criminal Procedure against Mela Ram accused declared proclaimed offender or may file supplementary challan against accused Mela Ram.

The prosecution case in brief, is that challan for offences punishable under Sections 32, 33 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Sections 379, 201 IPC was filed on the allegations that in the year 1994 a large number of ''Kail'' and ''Deodar'' trees were felled from reserved forest known as ''Shoul'' C-II PB-I in connivance with forest officials and timber of the trees had either been appropriated by some villagers or hidden at some places to cause loss to the State. On receipt of this information, the matter was got investigated.

It is the case of the prosecution that during investigation, it was found that in connivance with some forest officials namely Kamaljeet Chandel, Prithi Chand and Naram Singh, the other accused felled a large number of trees which were converted into logs and sleepers and used by some of the accused in the construction of their houses and some were stored by them at some places. Accused Kamaljeet Chandel on getting suspicion of action being taken against him, took action and recovered some timber from some of the accused and reported the matter to his higher authorities. During investigation, it was found that, in fact, Kamaljeet Chandel, Prithi Chand and Naram Singh had connived in felling of trees and their conversion into logs, sleepers and their appropriation by some of the accused.

The Respondents were summoned. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 were charged under Sections 32, 33 of the Indian Forest Act read with Sections 34 IPC, Sections 379, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC. The charge under Sections 32, 33 of Indian Forest Act read with Section 34 IPC and Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against accused Nos. 5 to 24, 26 to 39. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution examined 22 witnesses and produced some documents. The accused led no evidence in defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on conclusion of trial acquitted the Respondents, hence, this appeal.

I have heard learned Additional Advocate General along with learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 and have also gone through the record. On behalf of the Appellant, it has been submitted that prosecution has proved the case against the Respondents. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has erred in acquitting the Respondents. The learned Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after appreciating the material on record has rightly acquitted the Respondents. He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

PW1 Amar Singh has stated that it is an old matter and he does not remember. He has stated that some timber was measured in his presence and lists were prepared. Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-26 bears his signatures. He does not remember the quantity of the timber. He was declared hostile, but, in his cross-examination, nothing material was extracted by the prosecution. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused Kamaljeet, he has stated that timber was got recovered by Kamaljeet. PW2 Salig Ram has stated that in the year 1994, he was on special duty in ''Churah'' Division. In July, 1994, he accompanied Divisional Forest Officer, Jitender Kumar Plah, for inquiry. The stumps were counted during the inquiry in ''Shoul'' reserve forest. He signed the lists and identified his signatures on Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C. The timber was recovered from the houses. PW3 Prabhu Diyal has stated that no illicit felling was done in his presence. The papers were not prepared in his presence. He was declared hostile. He admitted his signatures on Ex. PW3/A. PW4 Lal Chand has stated that he had not seen anybody cutting the trees. On seeing the police and forest officials, accused had thrown timber from their houses. He did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. PW5 Satish Kumar was also declared hostile.

PW4-A Khem Raj has stated that he is a carpenter and also works as a painter in his area. He prepared the doors and windows of the house of Hans Raj about 12-13 years ago which were of ''Deodar'' and ''Tosh'' wood. PW5-A Kuldeep Singh Jasrotia has stated that in the year 1994 he was posted as Superintendent, Grade-I, in the Office of Conservator of Forests. He had produced record vide memo Ex. PW5/A. PW6 Kamal Singh, Forest Ranger, has stated that in July, 1994, before joining his duties, the accused had collected 340 scants. The Enforcement Staff came and conducted checking in the illaqua and got measurement conducted of the houses constructed in 1993-94. They asked house owners to produce permits, which they could not produce. At ''Batyali'' 15 scants were concealed in bushes which were recovered vide memo Ex. PW2/B. At ''Gadnala'' 43 scants of ''Deodar'' were concealed in a trench which were recovered vide memo Ex. PW6/A. In cross-examination, he has stated that the persons were entitled to T.D. In his presence, no timber was recovered from any person.

PW7 Moti Ram has stated that he remained Pradhan and T.D. was allotted to 42/43 persons including some accused. D.P.F. ''Shoul'' is at a distance of one and half kilometres from his house. No illicit felling took place in the forest. He was not declared hostile. PW8 Suraj Prakash, retired Deputy Ranger, has stated that in the year 1994, he inspected ''Shoul'' reserve forest and noticed extensive damage. He reported the matter to Range Officer, Tissa. He took Range Officer Kamaljeet and B.O. Prithi Chand in the forest. Thereafter, they seized the timber. Enforcement police came on the spot. During investigation from different places, 340 scants were recovered. In cross-examination, he has stated that Kamaljeet and Prithi Chand had helped in recovering the timber.

PW9 Prabhu Diyal has stated that nothing happened in his presence. He was declared hostile. PW10 Lobhi Ram has stated that he does not know anything about the case. He was declared hostile. PW11 Jai Diyal has stated that he is a carpenter. He does not know what happened in the year 1988-89. He worked in the house of Makhan Lal in the year 1988-89. He has stated nothing about the case. PW12 Kuldeep has stated that police took into possession some record from him vide memo Ex. PW5/A which bears his signatures. PW13 Tek Chand has stated that he does not know anything about the case. He was declared hostile.

PW14 Gulab Singh has stated that in the year 1994 he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Tissa. On 03.08.1994 he had gone to village ''Bundedi'' and ''Shoul'' forest for investigation. Outside the guard hut, Range Officer Kamaljeet had stacked the timber which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW14/A to Ex. PW14/H. In cross-examination, he has stated that on the basis of FIR lodged by Kamaljeet, investigation was conducted. PW15 Paras Ram has stated that nothing happened in his presence. He was declared hostile. PW16 Jagat Singh has stated that in the year 1994, he was posted as constable at Police Station, Tissa. On 28.07.1994, he joined the raiding party and recovered timber from village Maledi vide memo Ex. PW14/F. In cross-examination, he has stated that timber was recovered from open forest.

PW17 Hirdu Ram has stated that in the year 1994, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Tissa. On 27.07.1994 an application was received from Kamaljeet Singh Range Officer and on that basis FIR Ex. PW17/B was registered. PW18 Amar Nath has stated that in the year 1994, he was posted as Inspector, Enforcement, Police Station, Dharamsala. He conducted investigation in the case. He found that about 27 persons without permit had illegally used ''Deodar'' and ''Kail'' wood in new construction which was got measured. The timber used in the houses was taken into possession vide memos Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-26, Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW3/A, Ext. PW2/B, Ext. PW2/C and Ex. PW1/B. This timber and other illicit timber buried by the owners of the houses were handed over to B.O. Amar Singh and Suraj Prakash. During investigation, he found that from the reserve forest 196 ''Deodar'' trees and one ''Kail'' tree valuing Rs. 50,20, 937/- were illegally cut by the accused. In cross-examination, he has stated that no expert opinion was taken regarding the age of the stumps. He has stated that recovered timber has been auctioned. He has not seen axe, saw in the court which were recovered. He has stated that some timber was taken into possession by him and some by SHO, Police Station, Tissa and two cases were registered.

PW19 V.P. Mohan has stated that in the year 1994 he was posted as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. He has proved fax message Ex. PW19/A which was sent by him on 27.07.1994 to Enforcement Department. PW20 Bir Singh has stated that on 13.10.1994 he was posted in Enforcement Department at Dharamsala. He stated that Kuldeep Singh Superintendent Grade-I, Office of Conservator of Forests, had produced appointment and posting orders of some of the accused in his presence. PW21 Pyar Chand has stated that in 1994 he was posted in police line Chamba as head constable. He joined the investigation and in his presence 22 scants of ''Deodar'' were recovered which were concealed in bushes. In cross-examination, he has stated that 22 scants were recovered from the forest which were visible from a distance.

PW22 Gulab Singh has stated that from March, 1992 to June, 1995, he remained posted as Inspector in Enforcement Department, Northern Region, Dharamsala. He partly investigated the case. On receipt of fax message Ex. PW19/A, FIR Ex. PW22/A was registered. He recovered 50 scants of ''Deodar'' from the house of Ram Dayal accused. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had not collected the title papers of the houses from where the timber was recovered. He has no personal knowledge about the ownership of those houses. The Respondents in their statements have denied the prosecution case.

The Respondents have been charged for offences punishable under Sections as noticed above. The prosecution case is that Respondents had illegally cut trees from ''Shoul'' reserve forest. There is no direct evidence of cutting the trees by the Respondents. It has come on record that the right holders were given T.D. trees during that period. The recovered logs, scants, planks have not been connected with the stumps allegedly found at the place from where the trees were cut. There is no evidence that the timber used in the various houses was taken from trees standing on ''Shoul'' reserve forest. No documentary evidence in the form of title deeds, revenue record has been proved to connect the houses with the accused from where the timber was allegedly recovered.

It has come in evidence that some timber was recovered from the open forest, trenches or buried under the soil or from the bushes. This timber has also not been connected with the accused. The prosecution has led general type of evidence and not specific evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the offence. It has come on record that Respondent No. 1 Kamaljeet reported the matter and the action was initiated at his instance. After due appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken a possible view which emerges from the evidence on record. In an appeal against acquittal, other view possible is no ground for reversing the acquittal. There is no merit in the appeal, hence, dismissed, bail bonds of Respondents discharged.