State of H.P. vs Hari Dutt and Others

V.K. Ahuja , J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. u/s 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Special Judge (Forests) Shimla, dated 27.8.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 120B I.P.C., Section 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on receipt of a written complaint dated 14.9.1987 that the respondents are habitual in illicit felling of trees from the Government forest and they had cut and felled 55 trees of Deodar, a case was registered and on enquiry, 50 stumps of illicitly cut trees were found, which were one and half month old. The stumps were without hammer mark. During investigation, illicitly cut slippers were lying at various places, were taken in possession and given on sapurdari to the Block Officer and some of the logs were given on sapurdari to PW-3 Sohan Lal. Thereafter, Investigating Officer got demarcation of the forest in question through Kanungo Jia Lal, who found that 15 trees were illicitly felled in Khasra No. 252, 21 trees were unauthorisedly felled in Khasra No. 205 and 16 trees were illicitly found cut in Khasra No. 289/1. In all, 52 trees were found to have been illicitly cut from the Government forest. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, the challan was filed against the respondents before the trial Court, who tried the respondents as detailed above, leading to their acquittal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

On appraisal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it is clear that there is no direct evidence to prove that the respondents were found at any time cutting the trees in question from the Government land. It has not been disputed by the learned Deputy Advocate General that there is no direct evidence in this regard and it is only circumstantial evidence, which has been led to connect the accused persons with the commission of the crime.

Apart from the above, it has also come up on record that the demarcation in question was done by the Field Kanungo. The learned trial Court has found several infirmities in the demarcation report given by the Kanungo that these were not inconsonance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner and keeping in view the infirmities in the manner in which the demarcation was carried out, the learned trial Court had come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that these trees were cut from the Government land.

Apart from the above, during the course of arguments, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the instructions were issued by the State Government vide letter dated 9.11.1989 that in the case of Government land, no Revenue Officer not below the rank of A.C. Ist Grade shall demarcate the boundaries of Government land with private land. It has been specifically laid down that the Field Kanungo shall not in any case demarcate the Government land with the private land. These insutructions were issued by the State Government on 9.11.1989, which have been duly incorporated in 10.10 of H.P. Land Record Manual and as such, these instructions are to be followed by the Revenue Officers. In the present case, the demarcation was done by PW-22 Jia Lal, Field Kanungo, on 18.11.1989 i.e. after the instructions had been issued by the State Government. Even if the last report had been given by the Field Kanungo unaware of the instructions issued, these could have been followed by further demarcation having been taken from the person not below the rank of A.C. Ist Grade. It is clear that the demarcation was given by the Field Kanungo inspite of the instructions of the State Government dated 9.11.1989 that it shall be given by the Revenue Officer not below the rank of A.C. Ist Grade and no subsequent demarcation was taken and, therefore, keeping in view the infirmities in the report submitted by the Field Kanungo, the said report was not relied upon. No infirmity in the findings recorded could be pointed out during the course of arguments to hold that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in accordance with law.

The learned trial Court had given reasons for not believing the prosecution story and the witnesses mostly are of formal nature to prove the seizure memos etc. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court shows that during the investigation of the case, independent witnesses of the village namely PW-1 Bhagat Ram, PW-3 Sohan Lal and PW-17 Lal Chand were associated, but PW-1 and PW-17 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story and as such, the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The final findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be perverse calling for in interference by this Court.

In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged.