State of H.P. vs Rikhi Ram and Others

R.B. Misra, J.—It is brought to the notice of this Court that respondent-accused No. 3, namely, Ram Singh, has died. Therefore, appeal against him is abated.

The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to judgment dated 27.12.1996, passed by the Learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, in Corruption Case No. 34-S/7 of 1995, under Sections 379, 467, 218, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 33 and 26 of the Indian Forest Act read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 6/14 of the H.P. Specific Corrupt Practices Act, acquitting the alleged accused/respondents.

A complaint regarding illicit felling was received in the office of Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Shri D.S. Minhas (Commissioner M.C.) marked this complaint for inquiry to Bansi Ram. He conducted the inquiry and submitted the report to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla and on the basis of this inquiry report, case was registered against Rikhi Ram, Deputy Ranger, Manohar Singh and Ram Singh forest guards, who were posted in the Divisional Forest Corporation Shimla as Incharge of Syog area, reserve forest, Catchment area Chharabra and Seog CAF beat respectively.

The investigation reveals that in 1987 Rikhi Ram, Deputy Ranger and Ram Singh forest guard were assigned the job of collecting fuel wood lying in the catchment area of Dhalli forest and for supplying the same to the Sanatan Dharam Sabha. The work was to be carried out w.e.f. 21.4.1987 to 10.7.1987. They engaged Daulat Ram, Gulab Singh, Chet Ram, Deep Ram and Desh Raj for this work as per the muster-roll maintained by them and 396 quintals of fuel wood was collected. However, as per the investigation, illicit felling of the trees was done by these officials from 19.7.1987 to 7.8.1987 in compartments No. 5, 6 and 33. They engaged the aforesaid labourers for this work on the pretext that this also is an official work for which they will be paid through muster-roll. Ram Singh accused who was Incharge, did not visit this beat during this period intentionally. However, when they came to know that a complaint had been received in the Municipal Corporation''s office on 1.9.1987, he issued a damage report on 3.9.1987 for illicitly felling 12 trees in order to cover up the illicit felling done by the accused persons. Hence, he connived with Rikhi Ram and Monohar Singh in committing the offence.

8 Deodar, 2 Kail and 12 Oak trees valuing Rs. 39,662/- approximately were found to have been illicitly cut by the accused persons with the help of labourers who were engaged on the muster-roll which had been issued for some other purposes i.e. digging of pits for plantation purpose. Hence, the accused persons committed offence under Sections 379, 120B, 467/218 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 33/26 of the Indian Forest Act read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which corresponds to Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

After investigation, the accused persons were arrested and charged for the offence under Sections 379, 467, 218, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 33 and 26 of the Indian Forest Act read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 6/14 of the H.P. Specific Corrupt Practices Act. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 33 prosecution witnesses. Whereas, the accused through their statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., have denied the prosecution case.

The prosecution case mainly rests on the inquiry report submitted by(PW.4) Bansi Ram. PW.4, PW.7, PW.8, PW.9 and PW.10 had denied the cutting of trees at the instance of the accused and these were declared hostile. Statement of PW.10 is contradicted by Mela Ram and Bansi Ram on material aspects. According to Mela Ram, the statements and affidavits were written by him on the dictation of Bansi Ram (PW.4) in the Committee''s Office and these papers were then brought by the Inquiry Officer to the Court complex for getting them attested. PW.10 has also stated that he put his signatures on the affidavit as identifier in the committee''s Office itself. Similarly, Bansi Ram (PW.4) has stated that these affidavits are in the hand writing of Mela Ram. However, PW.10 Daulat Ram has insisted that all these affidavits have been executed in the court complex and have been written by Bansi Ram himself. Statements of PW.7, PW.8, PW.9 and PW.10 are of no help to the prosecution case.

Apart from these statements, there is no connecting evidence to show that any illicit felling was done by the accused persons. Neither any body saw them cutting the trees nor the timber of these illicitly cut trees was recovered or traced.

The prosecution has led evidence to prove that the fuel wood was collected as per the orders of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Shimla and was sold to Snatan Dharam Sabha. In this connection. PW Ram Gopal, PW.15 Bhanu Dutt and PW.16 Ashwani Kumar have been examined. They however, did not say anything regarding illicit cutting of trees or timber and only stated that fuel wood was purchased or transported and payment was made to the Municipal Corporation Shimla. None of these witnesses have stated that besides fuel wood, the timber from illicitly felled trees was also transported. So these witnesses are not relevant for the purpose of proving the charge against the accused persons.

There is no evidence on record that damage report was issued by Ram Singh intentionally on 3.9.1987 after coming to know of the filing of the complaint in the Municipal Corporation''s Office Shimla.

In our considered view, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused and the the learned Special Judge (Forests) has carefully analyzed the prosecution witnesses and has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. In our considered view, there is no scope of interference in the findings given by learned Sessions Judge. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondent are hereby discharged.