STATE OF H.P. Vs. BANSI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgement, dated 20.3.2000, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, in case No. 143-III of 96, acquitting the respondent, under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that PW 6 Prem Singh, beat Guard on 22.4.1994 was patrolling UF 389 Janahan forest and he found two Deodar trees were illegally cut by someone. On inquiry, it was found that respondent had cut these trees. The respondent was seen felling trees by PW 3 Daulat Singh also. Accordingly, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? damage report Ex. PW 2/A was prepared in presence of PW 2 Daulat Ram. The respondent allegedly confessed his guilt. Two scants were recovered, which were handed over to PW 1 Ram Lal on sapurdari by memo Ex. PW 1/A. The damage report was verified by PW 4 Kanshi Ram. PW 5 Padam Dev prepared the complaint and filed in the court. The notice of accusation was put to respondent, under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. The statement of the respondent was recorded, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he pleaded his innocence but he did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, acquitted the respondent, hence this appeal.

(3.) PW 1 Ram Lal has stated that two logs were handed over to him on 22.4.1994, vide Ex. PW 1/A, which is signed by him. PW 2 Daulat Ram has stated that none has confessed his guilt in his presence. He did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. In cross examination by the prosecution, he has specifically denied that respondent confessed his guilt on 22.4.1994. He has stated that Guard got his signatures on the document mark-X. PW 3 Col. Daulat Singh has stated that respondent on 17.4.1994 had cut Deodar tree from Panchayat orchard and Guard prepared damage report to this effect. In cross examination, he has stated that logs were cut in two pieces by saw which can be operated by two persons. The Guard did not come in his presence nor damage report was prepared in his presence. The respondent did not confess his guilt in his presence.