NOTA RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is directed against Judgment dated 21.4.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kullu, HP in Cr. Appeal No. 7/2008 affirming judgment/order dated 18.3.2008/31.3.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, L & S at Kullu in Criminal Case No. 436-I of 2002/46-ii of 2005, whereby present petitioner-accused (herein after referred to 'accused') was held guilty of offence under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act whereas he was acquitted under Section 379 IPC. Accordingly, present petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the commission of offence under Sections 41 and 42 Indian Forest Act.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that on 19.3.2002, a police team led by HC Lal Singh, HHC Darshan Singh and HHC Pitamber Lal of Police Station Kullu was on patrolling duty near Angan Nallah in government vehicle bearing registration No. HP34A-0162. It also emerges from the record that at later point of time, aforesaid team of Police Station was joined by Gita Ram, Forest Block Officer, Gumat Ram, Forest Guard of Pah Beat and Poshu Ram, Chowkidar of Forest Department. The police alongwith forest officials went to Pah Nallah in the said vehicle. When they were 100 metres short of Pahnalah, they found a Tractor baring registration No. HP-34-3582 parked in start condition. As per prosecution story, one Suresh Kumar son of Dola Ram was found sitting on the driver seat, whereas other persons including the present petitioner were found sitting in the Tractor. However, the fact remains that that after seeing the police and forest officials, Suresh Kumar, Driver stopped the tractor and taking advantage of darkness, ran away from the spot. Police and forest officials checked the trolley of tractor and found 8 sleepers of different sizes of Deodar lying in the trolley. Police immediately took into possession the trolley as well as timber lying in the same vide memo Ext. PW-3/A. Head Constable Lal Singh prepared Rukka Ext. PW-9/A and sent to the Police Station, Kullu, where on the basis of same, FIR Ext. PW-9/B was registered. Police also prepared site plan Ext. PW-11/A and produced the case property alongwith tractor trolley before the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Shamsi for disposal under Section 52A of Indian Forest Act. During investigation, police found tractor in question to be owned by one Bhag Chand, who claimed that he had given this tractor to the accused for a period of seven months on monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/- per month from 1.3.2002 to 30.9.2002, vide contract agreement Ext. PW- 1/A. Police also took into possession, aforesaid agreement and insurance of the tractor vide memo Ext. PW-6/A and PW-1/A, respectively, in the presence of witnesses. Accused were arrested and during the course of interrogation, accused Piar Chand led the police to a place 100 metres short of Pahnalah and got the place identified where tractor had been parked alongwith trolley in start condition with eight sleepers. Accordingly, the police prepared demarcation memo Ext. PW-7/A. It also emerges from the prosecution story that accused and Chatter Dass led police alongwith witnesses and got place identified where tractor trolley had been kept in start condition.

(3.) Learned trial Court, on the basis of material made available on record, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case exists against the present petitioner as well as co-accused, accordingly framed charges under Sections 379 IPC and Sections 41 and 42 Indian Penal Code, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, learned trial Court, on the basis of material adduced on record by the prosecution, held the accused guilty of having committed offences under Sections 41 and 42 Indian Forest Act. However, he was acquitted under Section 379 IPC. Other coaccused namely Piar Chand and Chatter Dass were acquitted by the Court for want of evidence. Present petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction recorded against him, approached the Court of Sessions Judge under Section 374 CrPC.