State of H.P. v. Bhag Chand

Briefly stated, facts of the case, as per the prosecution are that in the year 1993, Bhau Ram, Range Officer, Chhajpur Forest Range along with Dy. S.P. Enforcement, South Zone, Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Ys 2 Shimla was present in the area in the month of October, 1993, as they were conducting investigation in case FIR No.14/93, 15/93 and 16/93 when Bhau Ram, Range Officer informed the Dy. S.P. about the large scale illicit felling in compartment Nos. 17 and 18 DPF Forest Chhajpur. He then joined other forest officials to conduct the checking of Chhajpur Forest. During the checking, respondent No.1 disclosed that he got marked trees under T.D.Scheme from Respondent No.2 Sobh Ram, Deputy Ranger and Respondent No.3 Bhag Singh Forest Guard, Jubbal who were the in charge of Chhajpur Forest Beet.

3. During the course of checking, it was found that in compartment No.17, trees of 5 stumps of Deodar which were over size of more than the Diameter of 100 Cu. M. and above with Khudan marks and said Khudan markers were freshly engraved. The said trees were having no hammer marks. The trees had been sanctioned under TD Scheme in favour of respondent Bhag Chand and three others persons, namely, Jai Chand, Karam Chand, Jangu Lal and Mehar Chand. The permits had been issued by respondent No.2.

4. During the course of investigation, it was also learnt from respondent No.1 that the trees of the stumps in question have been felled by him in the year 1993 during the months of August and September. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer went to compartment No.18 where, 6 stumps of Deodar and one stump of Kail were found, the trees of which were freshly cut. The stumps were found without Khudan and hammer mark. The 3 timber of felled trees, found in both the compartments, was lying scattered on the slopes of the compartments, which was measured and counted and as many as 460 scants of deodar, including 3 Kail trees, were seized and hammer mark was affixed and these were taken in possession. Logs of Deodar trees were also found on the spot which were taken in possession and given on Sapurdari. Thereafter, spot maps were prepared by the Investigating Officer and an FIR was registered. During the investigation, respondent No.1 produced T.D. Permits and other documents, including applications for permits and tour diaries etc. and after taking the sanction of the sanctioning authority, the challan was filed against all the respondents.

5. Respondent No.1 was charged as detailed above and challan was also filed against respondents No.2 and 3 who were also charged accordingly but since they have died the appeal against them has abated. The details of the charges framed against them are not being mentioned.

6. The case of the prosecution has to be appreciated in the light of the above facts in regard to the evidence as against respondent No.1 only. During trial, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses and on conclusion of the trial all the respondents were acquitted of the charge by the learned trial Court.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

8. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.1, a private individual, in criminal conspiracy with respondent Nos. 1 4 and 2 in charge of the Chhajpur forest illicitly cut as many as 5 over size Deodar trees in compartment No.17 in the guise of the trees which were sanctioned to others also apart respondent No.1, he had also cut and felled six trees of Deodar in compartment No.18 which were marked by forest officials, converted them into scants and exported the same, cheating the State to the extent of Rs.7,73,005/- and thus committed offences punishable under various sections.

9. It is not in dispute that one Deodar tree and on Kail tree was sanctioned to respondent No.1 in compartment No.17 and he has proved the permit Ex.PW-2/A issued to him in this regard. The case of the prosecution is that in the guise of the permits issued to respondent No.1 and others, he had cut the trees in compartment Nos. 17 and 18.

10. PW-1 Jai Chand has stated that the application Ex.PW- 1/A does not bear his signatures nor it is in his handwriting. He stated that no tree had been sanctioned of any species under T.D.Scheme from any forest in his favour.

11. PW-4 Karam Chand has stated that he had filed an application for sanction of tree under T.D.Scheme through his son. No tree had been sanctioned in his favour nor he cut or felled any tree in Chhajpur forest or extracted any timber or took the same to his house. No tree had been marked in his favour under T.D.Scheme and no permit under the scheme had been given to him. He stated that he does not remember to which of his sons he had handed over the application for grant of tree 5 under the T.D.Scheme and admitted that the application is Ex.PW-4/A which was given by him.

12. PW-5 Mehar Chand has also stated that he had applied for the sanction of two trees of Deodar and one Kail tree under T.D.Scheme but the outcome of the said application was not intimated to him. He did not cut any tree or felled the same under the T.D.Scheme and no timber was extracted by him. No T.D. permits were granted in his favour nor were any trees marked in his favour. He submitted that the application Ex.PW- 5/A is neither in his hand nor bears his signatures.

13. PW-10 O.P.Solanki has proved the applications received for the grant of trees under T.D.Scheme, as he was posted as DFO Jubbal at the relevant time. He stated that on the basis of these applications, he had sanctioned trees in their favour under T.D.Scheme as mentioned in the sanction order on the said application. He also stated that the sanction order on the other applications are in his hand writing and bears his signatures. It is clear from a perusal of the statement of this witnesses that all these witnesses do not admit that they have applied for permit or had cut or felled trees but these applications were proved on record as discussed above.

14. PW-19 Govind Singh, Investigating Officer, the then Dy. S.P. Enforcement has stated that Bhag Chand respondent had disclosed that he had cut the trees sanctioned under the TD Scheme. During the course of checking, he found 5 stumps of Deodar of over size and Khudan marks were found freshly 6 engraved. He further stated that the trees had been sanctioned under T.D. in favour of respondents Jai Chand, Karam, Jangu Lal Mehar Chand and Bhag Chand for which permits had been issued by respondent No.1. He stated that respondent No.1 had disclosed the trees of 6 stumps had been got felled by him in the year 1993 during the month of August and September. He admitted that the extracted timber of the trees of stumps in compartments No.17 and 18 was lying scattered in the slopes of compartment Nos. 17 and 18. The extracted timber lying on the spot was measured and counted and it was found 460 scants of Deodar and Kail. The said timber was given on Sapurdari in favour of Bhau Ram, Range Officer vide Ex.PW-3/A. The timber was identified by Bhau Ram Range Officer in Compartment Nos. 17 and 18. He stated that the timber logs were taken in possession and given on Sapurdari.

15. From a perusal of the statement of PW-19 Gian Singh it is clear that no confessional statement of respondent No.1 was recorded in regard to the fact that he had cut the trees and were lying in his possession. The said confessional statement was never reduced into writing and no witnesses were associated at the time of such statement leading to the recovery which was effected from open place accessible to all. The mere fact that permits might have been issued in favour of other persons also apart from respondent No.1 is not sufficient to hold that the trees were cut by respondent No.1 in connivance with other respondents who are the forest officials. The said oral statement 7 that confession was made by respondent No.1 cannot be used as against respondent No.1 since it was never reduced into writing and no recoveries were made in pursuance of the said statement. No record of Compartment No.18 was checked for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer.

16. Thus, there is no direct evidence in regard to the cutting of the trees by respondent No.1 or the recovery at his instance or from his possession. The evidence has been discussed in detail by the learned trial Court in so far as the respondent No.1 is concerned. No infirmity could be pointed out during the course of arguments that any material evidence was not considered by the learned trial Court or was ignored and, as such, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence in detail and I find no reason to disagree with those findings.

17. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed as against respondent No.1 also having abated against the other respondents. The bail bonds furnished by respondent No.1 stands discharged. September 27,2010 (SDS) (V.K.Ahuja), J.