State of H.P. vs Mansha Ram

Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal challenges the acquittal of the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour in Criminal Case No. 405/3 of 1983/201/3 of 1984 under Sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act.

Briefly, the facts are that on 12-11-1982, Subhash Chand, Incharge Forest Beat, Nohara, and Sudan Singh, Forest Guard went to the saw mill of Rattan Singh in village Nohara, while patrolling and found twenty-seven Slippers of Deodar at the saw mill. Some of them were bearing mark ''Chopal 8-79''. The accused was also present there and stated that these Slippers belonged to him and they were brought by him from Chopal. He failed to produce the permit for the transport thereof with the result that damage report was prepared and all the Slippers were taken into possession and given on Spurdari to Rattan Singh, the owner of the saw mill, and thereafter, they were handed over to Surjan Singh, Forest Guard as Spurdar.

The matter was reported to the Police. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the same day, certain laborers of the accused were bringing five scants from Shamara Forest. On interrogation, the accused also admitted that these five scants also belonged to him. These scants were also given on Spurdari to Bakshish Singh.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial ended in the acquittal of the accused. This is how; the order has been challenged by the State through this appeal.

Shri M.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, has submitted that the trial Court has committed error in not accepting the testimony of the witnesses and the confessional statement (Ext. PW-l/D), which is available on the record of this case. It was also contended that the prosecution has clearly established the offence against the accused and in view of the damage report, confessional statement and the version of the prosecution witnesses, the accused should have been punished for the violation of Rule 71 of H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978, framed u/s 41 of the Indian Forest Act, since the accused had transported the timber without obtaining pass from the concerned Divisional Forest Officer or any other Officer authorized in this behalf.

Let the evidence in the case be examined. There is no evidence in the case that the accused transported these Slippers from Chopal to Nohara and it was he who kept them at the saw mill. Although an effort has been made to show that the accused was available at the saw mill and he admitted having transported the timber, but the statement given by Rattan Singh (PW-3), the owner of the saw mill, completely destroys the evidence of Subhash Chand (PW--1) and Surjan Singh (PW-2), when he states that the timber was lying on the road side and it was he who informed the Forest people about the same. He also states that the accused was not present there. In addition to this, the statement of Rama Nand Sharma (DW-1) is there on the file, who states that according to the School Register, the accused was present in the school on 11th and 12th of November, 1982. This kind of version clearly demonstrate that the accused never, transported the timber (twenty-seven Slippers) to Nohara from Chopal on 12-11-1982.

Similarly, the allegation relating to the carrying of five scants from Shamara Forest is devoid of any cogent and convincing evidence. No serious efforts were made to prove this part of the case also. The laborers who were carrying the timber, have not been cited by the prosecution. Perusal of the damage report shows that it has not been signed by the accused. It is not possible to accept the version that the accused refused to sign it, in view of the allegation that the accused had confessed the transport of timber vide statement (Ext. PW-l/D). As a matter of fact, this kind of plea on the part of the prosecution damages the whole case of the prosecution and it is not possible to believe the statement of these witnesses. The accused has denied having given this statement (Ext. PW-l/D) and signed the same.

There is one more fact which is worth noticeable. The offence was committed on 12-11-1982, but the matter was reported to the Police on 30.11.1982. The delay has not been explained. It is in evidence that the saw mill, where these scants were found, is at a short distance from the Police Station. Recording of First Information Report at the earliest has been emphasized time and again in numerous judicial pronouncements. (See: Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1975 CLJ 1393 (Rathi Das and Ors. v. The State), 1986 Criminal Law JOURNAL 433 (Madkami Baja v. The State) and 1989 CLJ 2520 (Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P.).

Secondly, despite the fact that number of people are living nearby the place of occurrence, independent witnesses have not been associated. These facts cast clear doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution case and in such a situation; it is not only hazardous, but also dangerous to convict the accused on this kind of evidence.

The matter has been examined by the trial Judge quite comprehensively and exhaustively. The conclusions arrived at are quite reasonable and in accordance with the evidence on the record of this case. I have no reason to disagree with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Judge.

The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.