STATE OF H.P. Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH
LAWS(HPH)-1997-5-55
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on May 06,1997

STATE OF H.P. Appellant
VERSUS
BHUPINDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR GOEL,J. - (1.)State has filed this appeal against the judgment passed by Shri. S.L. Sharma, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chopal. By means of impugned judgment dated 71 -6 - 1986 in case No.245/1 of 1983, respondents have been acquitted of the case under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act lodged against them before the trial court.
(2.)This case was initiated by the prosecutor of Forest Department. According to the prosecution case, on 21 -11 -1982 PW -1 Puran Chand, Forest Guard of Lihat beat was on patrol duty and while he was in forest known as Sari Dehat, he found that 8 kali trees had been illicitly felled and 57 scants and damdamas were lying on the spot. These scants were handed over on sapurdari after the beat hammber No.8 had been affixed on these scants. On enquiry made by Block Officer, Dehat, it transpired that these trees had been got cut and scants converted there - from for the purpose of sale, In these circumstances, damage report was prepared on the spot vide Ex. PB. On the reverse of this damage report, signatures of witnesses Sant Ram and Dhani Ram at points C and B respectively were obtained. Further case of the prosecution is that the concerned accused . -who were found there on the spot refused to sign the confessional statement though they stated that they had converted the timber into scants at the instance of M/S Khajan Singh Bhupender Singh contractors. These 57 scants were handed over to sapurdar Sant Ram vide Ex.P.A.. Further case of the prosecution is the extra judicial confession was made by Het Ram but the same has not been proved on record.
(3.)Similarly, statements of Basti Ram and Gurdas Ram (since deceased) were recorded vide Mark A and Mark -Y respectively. Further case of the prosecution was mat on the spot respondents Het Ram and Basti Ram were found along with Gurdas Ram (since deceased). Since they refused to sign the damage report despite having admitted the guilt, as such, damage report and other papers were sent to the Block Officer and on the basis whereof this challan came to be filed against the respondents.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.