State of H.P. v. Dina Nath & another

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the appellant : Mr. M.A. Khan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondent No.1 and one Sh. Chharandu Ram were prosecuted in Corruption case No. 20-S/7 of 1997 for offences punishable under sections 379, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 33 of the Indian Forest Act along with section 13 (II) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They were acquitted by the Special Judge (Forest) on 30.9.2000. The State has assailed the judgment dated 30.9.2000 by way of present appeal. Sh. Chharandu Ram died on 6.11.2003 and his name was directed to be deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 10.6.2004. The brief facts of the prosecution case which can be gathered from the judgment of the lower court are that a complaint dated 24.6.1993 which was addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla was made by the residents of Pargana Matiyana reporting illicit felling of trees on large scale by 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 unscrupulous element in connivance with forest officials in forest known as D-42 Kufta and D-122 Sari in forest beat Matiyana under forest range and Division Theog District Shimla, H.P. On the basis of the complaint, FIR No. 197/93 dated 17.11.1993 was recorded in Police Station Theog.. The respondent Dina Nath and Chharandu Ram (deceased) were charged for the commission of offences under sections 379, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 33 of the Indian Forest Act as well as under section 13 (II) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge was framed against the accused persons on 4.8.1998. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 35 witnesses. The accused were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Special Judge (Forest), Shimla acquitted the respondents on 30.9.2000, hence, this appeal. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent. Mr. Tek Chand Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent had supported the judgment dated 30.9.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The complaint Ex.PW-1/A is dated 24.6.1993. The FIR was registered in Police Station Theog on 17.11.1993 vide Ex.PW-30/A. The delay in registration of the FIR has not been explained by the prosecution. On the complaint Ex.PW-1/A signatures by the complainants were appended but none of the complainants has been examined by the prosecution nor has any reason been assigned why the complainants were not examined. The thrust of the prosecution case was that the trees were cut and felled during the years 1990-93. The PW-1 Sh. S.S. Saini had testified that the trees were felled within 6 months to one year. He visited the spot in the month of 3 September, 1993 and according to him felling took place after September,

1992. However, in his cross-examination he had admitted that there is no definite formula to ascertain the duration of the cutting of the trees. PW-7, Sh. Kailash Kumar and PW-8 Sh. Dev Raj have not supported the version of PW-1. PW-2 has stated that decaying process of deodar tree starts after 1 or 1 ‰ years and remains intact for 10 to 12 years. He has not given any definite opinion regarding the age of the stumps. PW-4 Sh. Sita Ram has also admitted in his cross-examination that there is no scientific method for ascertaining the age of stumps and he could not tell the age of stumps which were measured and counted by him. PW-6, Sh. Kanshi Ram has deposed that stumps had turned black and resin was oozing out. PW-7 had deposed that it could not be ascertained when the trees were felled. PW-8 Sh. Dev Raj has testified that the age of the trees in the stumps list was given at the instance of Shri Balak Ram (PW-11). PW-12 has deposed that the stumps which were counted were not fresh but were old. Similar is the statement of PW-13 with regard to the age of stumps. PW-16 has deposed that he was not expert and the age of the stumps could be ascertained by the expert and D.F.O. and above ranked persons were treated as experts. Sh. Narain Singh (PW-10) has proved the stumps Ex.PW-10/A and PW-10/C and deposed that the age of the stumps is determined on the basis of experience. PW-11 Balak Ram, Block Officer was declared hostile. The prosecution has failed to examine any expert witness to prove the age of the stumps. PW-2 Shri Vijay Sood had admitted that the entries of the registers Ex.PW-1/D and Ex.PW-1/E were not made in his presence and he could not tell in whose hands the entries were incorporated. The prosecution has not undertaken any exercise to get the hand writing or specimen signatures of A- 1 or A-2 examined from some hand writing expert in order to fix the liability of A-1. In order to prove that the fictitious entries were made by A-1 in 4 registers Ex.PW-1/D and Ex.PW-1/E, PW-14 Sh. Atma Ram, PW-15 Hem Chand, PW-17 Karam Chand, PW-18 Dhani Ram, PW-19 Jia Lal, Lambardar, PW-20 Hira Singh, PW-21 Shri Jaishi Ram, PW-22, PW-23 and PW-24 were examined. These witnesses have not supported the prosecution case with regard to the manner of maintaining the registers Ex.PW-1/D and Ex.PW-1/E. It is thus evident from the analysis of the evidence discussed hereinabove that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents. There are contradictions in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses. The age of the stumps could not be determined which was essential to prove the illicit felling in forest D-42 Kufta and D- 122 Sari. The prosecution has also failed to prove that fictitious entries were made in Ex.PW-1/D and Ex.PW-1/E in the absence of comparing the signatures of A-1. The witnesses produced to prove that entries in Ex.PW- 1/D and Ex.PW-1/E were not proper have not supported the case of the prosecution. The trial court in the absence of any reliable, cogent and plausible evidence had rightly acquitted the respondent and Sh. Chharandu (deceased) vide impugned judgment dated 30.9.2000. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla dated 30.9.2000 acquitting the respondents. The result of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. January 4, 2008 *Awasthi* ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge