State of H.P. vs Shobh Ram and Others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. u/s 378 Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, dated 31.10.2002, acquitting the Respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 379, 420, 218, 120B IPC, Sections 33 & 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the year 1993, Govind Singh, Dy. S.P., PW-28, was posted as Investigating Officer in the Enforcement Zone, Shimla. On 12.10.1993, he alongwith Forest Officials and other independent persons including PW-17 Mast Ram, proceeded to compartment No. 13, Chhajpur Forest, which was a Demarcated Protected Forest. During the course of checking, PW-17 Mast Ram pointed out two stumps of Kail and two stumps of felled deodar trees bearing Khudan mark No. 84/92 and 85/92, which were engraved therein. One stump of deodar was bearing Khudan No. 156/91 and another stump of deodar tree was having Khudan No. 82/92. All the said trees were alleged to be oversized and they were not sanctioned under Timber Distribution Scheme. It was also alleged that PW-17 Mast Ram disclosed that Hem Singh, who died before the filing of the challan, had got the trees of the said stumps cut and felled from him and from PW-4 Kashmir Singh, Chirani. The scants and logs of the said trees were lying on the spot. PW-18 Govind Singh checked permit and found that TD permits had been granted to Hem Singh, Surender Singh and one Bhagat Ram. The scants and logs of the aforesaid cut trees were taken into possession vide seizure memo and the list of the timber recovered from the spot was also prepared. The sample of seizure hammer was taken and the report was sent to the police on the basis of which the case was registered. After investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the Respondents under the aforementioned Sections leading to their acquittal.

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

It is clear from a perusal of the record of the case that the challan was filed against Shobh Ram, Deputy Ranger, Bihari Lal, Block Officer and Bhag Singh, Forest Guard. Out of these accused persons, Shobh Ram and Bhag Singh, are already dead and the evidence as against them led by the prosecution and considered by the learned trial Court need not be referred to. In so far as the evidence as against Bihari Lal, Respondent No. 2 is concerned, who was posted as Block Officer at the relevant time, it has to be considered and it has to be appreciated whether the evidence led proved the guilt of Respondent Bihari Lal or not.

It has been pointed out during the course of arguments that TD permits were granted to Hem Singh, Ravinder Kumar and Bhagat Ram in compartment No. 13. The case of the prosecution was that late Hem Singh, in connivance with the Forest officials, had cut the marked oversize trees, which could not have been cut under the Tree Distribution Scheme. The evidence as against Respondent No. 2 Bihari Lal has to be considered as to whether he ever affixed and marked the allotted hammer/Khudan marks on the illicitly felled trees, which were oversized.

The material statement, in the present case, can be said to be that of PW-17 Mast Ram. He stated that in the year 1992, he was called by Hem Singh and accompanied him to the compartment No. 13 of Chhajpur Forest. He referred to the trees of deodar and Kail marked by Shobh Ram and Bhag Singh, Forest Guard. He was not able to state the exact number of species, and the evidence as against Shobh Ram and Bhag Singh is not relevant. He further stated that the trees were marked by Forest Guard in the presence of BO Shobh Ram. This part of the evidence is not against Respondent Bihari Lal. He further stated that one year prior to this, one tree of deodar was got cut by Hem Singh, which was marked by Bihari Lal, B.O. Hem Singh had disclosed that the said tree has been obtained by him under TD. He further stated that he cannot tell the hammer number and Khudan marks which were affixed on the said trees. He has not stated the date of the visit of the police at that time. The other part of the statement of PW-17 Mast Ram is against other Respondents, which is not relevant. Thus, he has only attributed one fact to Respondent Bihari Lal that he had marked one tree of deodar, which was got cut by Hem Singh but the Khudan mark or hammer marks were not stated by him in his statement.

A perusal of the statement of PW-2 Bhawani Singh, brother of TD holder Ravinder Kumar, is only to the effect that Khudan marks were put by other Respondents. The statement of PW-4 Kashmir Singh is only to this effect that two trees, one of deodar and another of Kail, were felled and cut by him and rest of the trees were cut and felled by PW-17 Mast Ram. PW-4 Kashmir Singh has further stated that both the trees were having Khudan mark as well as hammer mark, but does not remember the specification of marks and he has also stated that when he was doing the charan work, other Respondents used to visit the spot, which evidence is not relevant against the present Respondent. He also stated that different Khudan marks were affixed on the stumps of trees, which were cut and felled by him, which have not been specified by him.

In their statements, PW-4 Kashmir Singh and PW-17 Mast Ram have mainly stated in regard to cutting of these trees at the instance of Hem Singh, who is already dead and was not made an accused since he had died prior to the filing of the challan.

PW-5 Bhau Ram, in his statement, had admitted that Khudan mark is imprinted on the tree with the help of iron rod and any person can engrave any such Khudan mark. He admitted that when he checked the stump, hammer mark was there but the same was not visible. PW-18 Kamal Chand and PW-19 Bhagat Ram have not supported the prosecution case and have not stated anything as against the present Respondent. PW-26 Diwakar Sharma, Forest Guard, has stated that he had accompanied the police and late Hem Singh had disclosed that he had felled and sawed the trees. He admitted in cross examination that the hammer marks on the stumps were not visible.

Thus, the only evidence led as against the present Respondent No. 2 Bihari Lal is the solitary statement of PW-17 Mast Ram that one of the tree was marked by Respondent No. 2, but that cannot be said to be sufficient to prove that the hammer mark was affixed by the present Respondent. The other witnesses have not stated anything as against the Respondent against whom the present appeal survives. Therefore, the final findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the guilt of Respondent No. 2 Bihari Lal was not proved beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse since there was no evidence as against the said Respondent.

In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Appellant, which stands dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by Respondent No. 2 Bihari Lal stand discharged.