STATE OF H. P. Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE trial Court has acquitted the respondent under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act against which the instant appeal has been filed.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case has been that during the intervening night of 13th and 14th October, 1998, A.S.I. Jaram Singh along with Police and Forest officials was on patrol duty with witness Chhota Ram. They put the naka at the place known as "Dolbar" near Ravinda Haryali. They spotted the respondent having Dupatta on his shoulder and was carrying and transporting the khair load with the help of torch. The Police demanded the permit or the license to carry the forest produce. Since the respondent did not produce any permission, as such, the khair load was taken into possession and according to the case of the prosecution, the respondent had cut it from the near demarcated protected forest. These were nine logs of different sizes weighing about 40 kg and valuing Rs. 4027/- as assessed by the Forest Department as per certificate Exhibit PW2/A. One log of the size of 0.55 mtr having girth of 0.24 mtr was retained as a sample and the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. remaining logs were given on supurdari to the Forest Guard. The Police prepared the ruka Exhibit PW7/A and sent it for registration of the case. FIR Exhibit PW7/B was registered. The Police prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses. The place from where the said logs were cut was identified. The Dupatta Exhibit P3, Torch Ext. P2 and Axe Ext.P4 were taken into possession. The respondent is also alleged to have made disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act pointing out the place. The certificate of Revenue Officer Ext. PW3/A was taken into possession along with other relevant record record. The challan under the aforesaid Sections was presented in the Court against the respondent for trial. The respondent was charge-sheeted. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously examined the evidence on record. In my opinion, the judgment of the trial Court is perverse as far as the acquittal with respect to transporting the logs of khair are concerned, because PW1 Babu Ram has clearly stated that around 4.15 a.m., the respondent was carrying the load of the khair logs as aforesaid and was caught red handed while transporting the same with the help of torch light. The Dupatta as well as torch of the respondent were taken into possession along with the logs vide Memo Exhibit PW1/A. In his cross-examination, the suggestion of the respondent is admitted that thereafter the respondent was taken to the Police Station. The Investigating Officer, S.I. Jaram Singh has also made the similar statement. Rather, in his cross-examination, the respondent had put to him that when the respondent was caught, nobody from the near by village was called and further the suggestion of the respondent has been admitted that when the respondent was caught, it was dark. In other words, the respondent has not denied having been apprehended by the Police as alleged. In view of the above statements and the admission in the form of suggestion which is also an evidence, it is abundantly clear that the respondent was caught red handed while transporting 40 kg of khair trees and in these circumstances as set out in the prosecution case. Thus, non-examination of Chhota Ram or non-inclusion of any witness from the nearby village is of no consequence nor it is the requirement of law. The respondent had failed to produce the permission or the export permit of the aforesaid case property at any time during the pendency of this case. Therefore, in my considered opinion, his acquittal under Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act is wrong and illegal. Therefore the said offence stands proved and the impugned judgment requires to be reversed to this extent.