State of H.P. vs Manohar Lal and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—The respondents were tried and acquitted by the learned trial court, in Criminal Case No. 153-I/99/97, 12-I I/2000, on 11.1.2001, for the offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 109, 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard and gone through the record of the case.

In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 20.4.1996 at around 6.30 am, the tractor bearing registration No. HP-34-2459, being driven with its trolley by Dharam Chand respondent and the other respondents including proclaimed offender Raju were passengers with him, was loaded with 17 slippers of kail without any permit. Police party headed by PW. 6 Balwant Singh while returning from patrolling duty came across the aforesaid tractor near Baragran Bridge at Patlikuhl. On interception, neither the driver of the tractor nor its passengers could produce the permit as such, the case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW-2/A.

Ruqua Ext. PW-5/A was sent for registration of FIR through HHG Joginder Singh. Police prepared the site plan Ext. PW-6/B and also took photographs. The respondents were arrested. The tractor was released on sapurdari. Later the respondents were also released on bail.

After the completion of investigation, the case was presented in the court for trial. Accused Raju had absconded as such he was declared proclaimed offender. The trial proceeded against the respondents for the aforesaid offences. At the end of trial, accused Hira Chand was acquitted on the ground that there was no evidence of theft of the alleged timber. Therefore, the case under Sections 109 and 411 of Indian Penal Code was not proved against him. Insofar as the other respondents were concerned, there were material contradictions with respect to recovery and identification of the accused which created a doubt, benefit of which was given to the respondents aforesaid, as such, they were acquitted.

The State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal thus filed the instant appeal.

At the very outset, I would like to say that there is absolutely no evidence of theft of the aforesaid timber nor any abetting of the offence of theft against Hira Chand aforesaid Thus, the prosecution could not prove that he was the receiver of the stolen property. Insofar as the transportation of the timber by the respondents is concerned, there are glaring contradictions appearing in the statements of prosecution witnesses which make the prosecution story quite doubtful. PW. 3, K.K. Gupta, Range Officer, stated that on 20.4.1996 he alongwith ASI Balwant, Constable Kushal Singh, HHG Prem Nath and Block Officer Adarsh Bir was on patrolling duty near Baragaran Bridge at around 6.30 am and they came across the tractor in question, attached with trolley, which was intercepted by them and recovered 17 slippers from the possession of the respondents. PW-6 ASI Balwant Singh, investigating officer although corroborated this version in his examination in chief. But positively in cross examination he categorically stated that the Range Officer and Block officer (PW-4 Adarsh Bir) were not with them but they were called later on the spot through one constable. They reached there at around 10.00 am. He also stated that except them no other person was present there. PW-4 Adarsh Bir did not say that he was accompanying the Range officer (PW-3) K.K. Gupta or the police at the time of interception. He is only a witness to supardari of the case property. Against the above depositions PW-5 HC Khushal Chand categorically stated that neither the Range officer nor the Block Officer aforesaid had gone with them on patrolling but he had another story to tell. He stated that the aforesaid forest officials had arrived on the spot at 7.00/7.30 am as against 10.00 am stated by the investigating officer.

Further a perusal of the statement of PW-4 Adarsh Bir Block Officer reveals altogether a different fact. According to him he was called by the police at 9.00/10.00 am from his office and by that time the police had already seized the tractor and the case property. PW-5 HC Khushal Chand and PW-6 ASI Balwant Singh had also contradicted the statements of PW-2 Prem Nath and Range officer K.K. Gupta(PW-3), saying that when the case property was seized besides them only PW-2 Prem Nath and one HHG Joginder Singh.

Not only with respect to seizure but there is major contradiction with respect to time when they had proceeded on patrolling. PW-2 Prem Nath stated that the police party proceeded at around 12.00/1.00 am during night. Whereas the Range Officer K.K. Gupta stated that they went around 6.00 am, but it stands proved that he was not a member of the raiding party. PW-5 HC Khushal Chand stated that they started from the police post at around 11.00 pm whereas ASI Balwant Singh (PW-6) stated about proceeding at around 10.00/11.00 pm. This also causes a major dent in the prosecution case.

Learned trial court took note of the above contradictions vis-�-vis contradictory evidence on record as discussed above and wrong identification of the respondents by PW-2. Further PW-6 Balwant Singh stated that there have been residential houses and shops in the close vicinity where the tractor was apprehended then one fails to understand as to why the independent witnesses, despite their availability and time, could not be included so as to lend assurance to the prosecution case. The material contractions which have crept in the evidence as discussed above have demolished the prosecution case.

Therefore, in the above circumstances, the learned trial court rightly acquitted the respondents for the offence(s) charged. The findings of acquittal are borne out from the record and I do not find anything worth interference therein. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of the case.

Send down the records.