State of H.P. vs Vijay Singh and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—State has appealed against the judgment dated 29 .10.2003 of learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla, whereby Respondents Vijay Singh, a forest official, Dila Ram, also a forest official, Puran Chand, Chuni Lal, Gaura Devi and Bhagwan Dutt, private persons, have been acquitted of charge, under Sections 379, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 43, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Case of the prosecution, which led to the charging and trial of the Respondents, for the aforesaid offences, may be stated. On 21 .05.1996, Chief Conservator of Forests addressed a complaint Ex. PW-7/B to Additional Director General of Police, complaining that illicit felling of 20 trees of Deodar and Ban (Oak) had taken place in un-demarcated protected forest, Thathal, Forest Range Kumarsain under Forest Division Kotgarh, with the connivance of Respondents Vijay Singh, who was then working as Block Forest Officer, and Dila Ram, Forest Guard. Felling was alleged to have been done by the rest of the Respondents. All the six Respondents were alleged to be in conspiracy with each other. That complaint was marked to PW-17 ASI Nari Ram, for enquiry. Said Nari Ram, after enquiry, submitted report Ex. PW-17/C, per which all the six Respondents were found involved in illicit felling of 18 Deodar trees from Khasra Nos. 168, 170 and 172, forming part of the aforesaid undemarcated protected forest. A case was registered vide FIR Ex. PW-17/E, on the basis of the said report.

During the course of investigation, demarcation of the site, where the trees were found felled, was carried out by PW-15 Inder Dev, who was then working as Naib Tehsildar. Demarcation indicated that the stumps of 18 allegedly illicitly felled trees stood on Khasra Nos. 168, 170 and 172. Stumps were bearing no hammer mark.

71 sleepers and other pieces of timber of Deodar were recovered from near a Temple. 13 pieces of timber were recovered from the house of Respondent Puran Chand, 11 pieces of timber were recovered from the house of one Ram Dass, father of Respondent No. 6 Bhagwan Dutt. Respondents Gaura Devi and Chuni Lal were alleged to have used the timber in construction of their houses. All these pieces of timber were unmarked and un-hammered.

Respondents were charged with the aforesaid offences. They pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 20 witnesses to bring the charge home to the Respondents. Almost all the local witnesses, examined by the prosecution to prove the allegation of felling of trees and recovery of timber from the houses of private Respondents, turned hostile. Prosecution tried to prove that Respondents Vijay Singh and Dila Ram, being the members of field staff of Forest Department and as such responsible for inspecting the forest and reporting any illicit felling taking place, did not report the felling of 18 deodar trees promptly and this conduct of theirs and also the fact that they did not recover the timber extracted from illicitly felled trees, though the same had been found lying near a Temple, close to the forest, indicated that they were privy to the illicit felling of the trees by other Respondents.

Defence taken by Respondents No. 1 and 2 is that there had been snow fall in the area and because of that from December, 1994 to March, 1994, it was not possible to detect illicit felling, area being under two-three feet deep snow. They stated that they carried out inspection of the forest in March and detected illicit felling. However, there was no trace of timber, because still there was some snow. They claimed that on 05.05.1995, when the snow completely cleared, they made enquiries and found that illicit felling had been carried out by Respondents No. 3 to 6, i.e. Puran Chand, Chuni Lal, Gaura Devi and Bhagwan Dutt and on the very day they issued damage reports Exts. PW-4/A, PW-4/B, PW-5/A and PW-5/B against these Respondents and submitted those reports to the Range Officer, namely PW-12 P.S. Verma. They also pleaded that timber had been seized by them from near the Temple and it was hammer marked with hammer, which produced the impression of English letter ''Z''. This plea was raised by the two Respondents, by throwing suggestions to the prosecution witnesses, including PW-12 P.S. Verma, Range Officer.

PW-12 P.S. Verma, Range Officer stated that it was he who had seized the timber, after receipt of damage reports Exts. PW-4/A, PW-5/B, PW-11/A and PW-11/B from Respondents No. 1 and 2. He, however, did not say if he had put any seizure hammer mark on the timber seized by him. Case of Respondents No. 1 and 2 is that the timber had been seized by them and they had embossed mark of the hammer allotted to Forest Guard, i.e. Respondent Dila Ram.

PW-1 Kishori Lal, who was working as Forest Guard in the year 1996, stated that when the police visited the spot on 31 .10.996, most of the timber was found lying near a Temple, a part of it was lying in the courtyard of Respondent Puran Chand and a small quantity in the verandah of one Ram Dass, father of Respondent Bhagwan Dutt and that that timber was seized and hammer mark HPZ-27 embossed.

The aforesaid statement of PW-1 is contrary to the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. When the police seized the timber on 31 .10.1996, vide seizure Memos Exts. PW-1/A, PW-1/B and PW-1/C, it was already bearing hammer mark HP27Z, as is clear from facsimile on paper-sheet Ex. PW-1/F. It is categorically recorded in Ex. PW-1/F that the timber was found to be hammer marked with hammer HPZ27, when it was seized and it was given on spurdari to PW-3 Manohar Singh.

Omission in the testimony of PW-12 P.S. Verma, Range Officer, that he had hammer marked the timber, which he allegedly seized on 16 .05.1995 and the statement of PW-1 Kishori Lal that seizure hammer was embossed on the timber on 31 .10.1996, being false, there cannot be any escape from accepting the plea of Respondents No. 1 and 2 that they themselves had seized the timber around the time of preparation of damage reports. Range Officer, PW-12 P.S. Verma, admitted, in his cross-examination, that there was no irregularity in the issuance of damage reports of this case. He also admitted that when snow is there in the forest, it may be difficult to detect illicit felling, because stumps cannot be located, on account of the area being covered under snow and similarly timber can also not be spotted.

There is absolutely no evidence, in support of the prosecution charge that there was a conspiracy between Respondents No. 1 and 2, on one side and the rest of the Respondents, on the other, for felling of the trees. Also, there is no evidence, showing that the trees had been illicitly felled by any of the four private Respondents. This fact could have been proved by the guard of the Beat, namely Respondent Dila Ram, or by Block Officer, namely Respondent Vijay Singh, who had issued the damage reports, but they themselves have been made co-accused with the private Respondents. Other private persons from the area examined as prosecution witnesses do not say that the private Respondents were involved in the felling of the trees.

In view of the abovesaid position, there does not appear to be any reason for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.