STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DURGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Criminal Appeal filed under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment of acquittal dated 14.12.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., Camp at Nalagarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 11-NL/10 of 2006/05, reversing the judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2005, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, in Criminal Appeal No. 360/2 of 2000, whereby the learned trial Court held all the accused guilty, except accused Bagga Ram, of having committed the offences punishable under Sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC) and under Sec. 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Court held accused Bagga Ram guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sec. 411 Penal Code and further convicted and sentenced all the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500.00, each.

(2.) Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that on 13.03.2000, police after having received information that some people were illegally cutting 'Khair' trees from the forest seal, formed a raiding party associating Forest Guards. At about 6.00 p.m., the raiding party allegedly found some persons carrying some logs on their shoulders and thereafter, stacking the same in the kiln of Contractor Bagga Ram-accused No. 5. Allegedly, such persons were apprehended. On interrogation, they revealed that they had earlier also sold 'Khair' logs to Contractor Bagga Ram-accused No. 5. The raiding party allegedly found eleven logs duly peeled and five logs with bark on the spot, i.e. the kiln of accused No. 5. At the instance of the accused, the police recovered axes and saws allegedly concealed by them under the bushes in the forest and took the same in its possession. The police also got the land demarcated and found that the trees were cut from Government land. After completion of the investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law, which being satisfied that a prima-facie case exists against the accused, framed Charge under Sec. 379 of Penal Code and Sec. 42 of the Indian Forest Act against accused Durga Ram, Mehar Singh, Madan Lal and Santokha, whereas accused Bagga Ram came to be charged for an offence punishable under Sec. 411 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) Investigating Agency with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 9 witnesses, whereas accused in their statements recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') denied the prosecution case in toto and also led evidence in their defence.