STATE OF H.P. Vs. DEVI SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Court of learned Special Judge (Forests) Shimla, dated 4.6.2002, vide which the Respondents were acquitted of the framed against them under Sections 379, 420,120B I.P.C., Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sections 33, 41, 42 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 29.9.1993 Shri Bhau Ram, the then R.O. Saraswati Nagar alongwith other officials checked the illicit felling in Compartment No. 14 -B Chhajpur Forest. During the course of said checking, stumps of Deodar trees having Khudan Mark 13/92 and 15/92 respectively on two stumps of the trees and third stump of the tree having no Khudan Mark were found. One stump having Khudan Mark 13/92 was of the Dia of 122 C.M., another stump having Khudan Mark 15/92 of the Dia of 110/95 C.M. and third stump which was having no Khudan Mark was found of the Dia of 50/60 C.M. The logs and scants of the trees of said stumps were found lying on the spot, which were seized by PW -21 Bhau Ram by affixing seizure hammer. The said logs and scants were measured. The timber list was prepared and complaint was prepared and sent to police for registration of the case. An FIR was registered and the case was investigated by Enforcement South Zone Shimla. During the investigation, it was also revealed that the said trees had been cut and felled by Respondent No. 1 Devi Singh. The record of Timber Distribution was also checked and during that time Respondent No. 2 Shobh Ram, now deceased, was posted as Forest Ranger (Block Officer), while Respondent No. 3 Bhag Singh, now deceased, was posted as Forest Guard in the year 1993. Accordingly, on completion of the investigation, the challan was filed against the Respondents before the learned Special Judge, who tried the Respondents as detailed above, leading to their acquittal.

(3.) ON appraisal of the judgment passed by the learned Court, it is clear that the trial Judge has also considered the evidence as against two of the Respondents, who are already dead as mentioned above and the evidence consists of the statements of the witnesses, who have deposed against all the three accused. However, since two of the Respondents are already dead, this Court has to consider the evidence only as against Respondent Devi Singh, who was a private person and the allegations were that the trees of three stumps had been cut and felled by the present Respondent or at his instance. Therefore, the evidence led by the prosecution has to be appreciated in the light of the role played by the present respondent.