Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Tula Ram And Others on 22 June, 2016
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
Cr. Appeal No. 214 of 2007
Decided on : 22.6.2016
State of H.P. .....Appellant.
of
Versus
Tula Ram and others .....Respondents.
Coram
rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Dy. A.G. For the Respondents: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4.
_______________________________________________________ Sureshwar Thakur, Judge, Oral The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judugement of the learned Chief 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:19 :::HCHP...2...
Judicial Magistrate, Solan, whereby he acquitted the .
accused/respondents for theirs allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 16 of the H.P.Land Preservation Act, 1978, 12 of the H.P.Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982 readwith Section 120 B IPC. The State of Himachal Pradesh of prays herein qua the impugned rendition of the learned Chief Judicial rt Magistrate whereby he acquitted the accused respondents being reversed by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
2. The beat wherein the land of respondent No.1 is located was opened for felling under the 10 years felling programme. On the accused/respondent No.1 standing granted permission by the appropriate authority for the felling of "Chil trees" existing on his land, the deceased Contractor arrayed as accused No.5 who stood authorized by him to hold felling of "Chil trees", proceeded to in November, 1998 fell 18 "chil trees", for felling whereof an apposite permission stood accorded by the competent authority.
However, in the same month during the course of the Contractor concerned felling 18 "chil trees", he in excess thereof proceeded ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:19 :::HCHP ...3...
to fell 98 trees. Since the Contractor beyond the felling .
permission accorded to respondent No.1, proceeded to fell "Chil trees" existing on the land of the latter, the Forest official concerned on receiving a secret information qua the illicit felling done by the contractor concerned proceeded to put into motion of the machinery for penalizing the accused respondents.
3. rt The brief facts of the case are that on Mauja Panooh Kuthalan including other maujas of Sabathu forest Range was opened during 1994-95 for private sale felling of Chil and other species as per ten year felling programme approved by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is alleged that private land owners were allowed to sell their trees standing in their own private land as per rules. It is further averred that as per the provisions of the Act no private person was allowed to do the trade of the restricted species including Chil trees. 18 trees of Chil of accused Tula Ram were found marked in his land which were to be felled. It is further alleged that the Divisional Manager, H.P.State Forest Corporation further entered upon an agreement with one Sahukar Singh to do the exploitation of Chil ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:19 :::HCHP ...4...
trees allowed to be fell by DFO including 18 numbers of Chil trees .
of accused. It is further alleged that the sub agent who was working under the supervision of the agent Forest Corporation Ltd. for felling of Chil trees as per the agreement started felling the trees during November, 1998 in the land of the accused and of Labour Supply Mate accused and the employees of the agent rt Forest Corporation hatched a conspiracy and felled 98 Chil trees from the private land of the respondents instead of 18 Chil trees which were allowed to be felled. The investigation was accordingly conducted and after completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused a challan was prepared and filed in Court.
5. Notice of accusation stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 16 of the H.P.Land Preservation Act, 1978, 12 of the H.P.Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982 readwith Section 120 B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:19 :::HCHP...5...
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 .
witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded in which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However, they did not choose to lead of any evidence in defence.
7. rt On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused.
8. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record.
Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has with considerable force and vigour contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing based on a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:19 :::HCHP ...6...
mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and .
theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication.
10. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision, of evaluated the entire evidence on record.
11. rt In proof of the prosecution case the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. The "Chil trees" located on the lands of respondents No. 1 and 2 stood illicitly felled by the contractor concerned. The prosecution for inculpating both accused/respondents No. 1 and 2, was enjoined to adduce cogent evidence displaying of theirs holding collusion or complicity with the Contractor concerned also the prosecution was enjoined to project evidence, communicative of both accused/respondents No. 1 and 2 being the persons who illicitly felled the "chil trees" located on their respective lands. In so far as the imperative necessity cast upon the prosecution of its adducing proof of accused/respondents No. 1 and 2 illicitly felling "Chil trees" located on their respective lands is concerned, it has ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:19 :::HCHP ...7...
abysmally failed to discharge the apposite onus by adducing .
relevant and germane evidence. Even the purported complicity or collusion which both accused/respondents No. 1 and 2 held with the Contractor concerned stands anvilled merely on the factum of the "Chil trees" growing on their respective lands standing felled of by the Contractor concerned. However, the mere factum of rt location of "Chil trees" on their respective lands is neither sufficient nor is convincing to hold a conclusion of theirs holding any active complicity or collusion with the Contractor concerned.
In display of the aforesaid complicity held by accused/respondents No. 1 and 2 with the Contractor concerned the Investigating Officer was enjoined to bring forth convincing evidence personificatory of both the aforesaid receiving monetary consideration from the Contractor concerned or the Contractor concerned promising to on his felling "Chil trees" existing on their respective lands, defray them a monetary consideration. However, the Investigating Officer has not adduced any evidence qua the facet aforesaid. In absence of the aforesaid evidence it would inapt to conclude of both accused/respondents No. 1 and 2 holding any active ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:19 :::HCHP ...8...
complicity with the Contractor concerned in the latter committing .
a penal misdemeanor. Contrarily, it has to be held of Contractor concerned while illicitly felling the trees growing on their respective lands had suo motu proceeded to do so, dehors his holding any mandate from either of the land owners who stand of arrayed as accused/respondents No. 1 and 2.
12. rt Be that as it may, the prosecution was obliged to bring forth convincing evidence to sustain a firm conclusion from this Court of both accused/respondents No. 1 and 2 holding knowledge qua the factum of the Contractor concerned felling "Chil trees" growing on their respective lands, despite knowledge obtained thereof by them, they maintained reticence also omitted to promptly report the matter to the Police Station concerned whereupon hence their inculpation by the prosecution was sustainable. The possession of knowledge by accused/respondents No. 1 and 2 qua the illicit felling of trees by the Contractor concerned was enjoined to be communicated by the material prosecution witnesses. The material prosecution witnesses stood entailed upon a dire necessity to portray in their ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:19 :::HCHP ...9...
respective depositions the factum of the habitats of .
accused/respondents No. 1 and 2 standing located in close proximity to their respective lands whereon "Chil trees" stood illicitly felled by the Contractor concerned, proximity whereof would rear a presumption of theirs holding knowledge qua the of illicit felling of "chil trees" by the contractor concerned. On rt drawing the presumption aforesaid the reticence maintained by both accused/respondents No. 1 and 2 qua the penal misdemeanor of the Contractor concerned also their omission to the report the illicit felling of the trees by the Contractor concerned would hence secure a firm conclusion from this Court of theirs holding both the apposite knowledge thereof also theirs actively colluding and conniving with the Contractor concerned in the latters proceeding to illicitly fell "Chil trees" growing on their respective lands. None of the material prosecution witnesses have rendered any communication qua the facet aforesaid.
Absence of the aforesaid communications by the material prosecution witness qua the prime factum probandum aforesaid constrains this Court to contrarily conclude of the prosecution ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:19 :::HCHP ...10...
abysmally failing to discharge the onus cast upon it qua both .
accused/respondents No. 1 and 2 holding knowledge qua the factum of the contractor concerned illicitly felling "Chil trees"
growing on their respective lands. As an apt sequitur, for absence of adduction by the prosecution the aforesaid prime of evidence detaches the inculpatory role fastened qua them by the rt prosecution also no capitalization can stand drawn by the prosecution of given their omission to promptly lodge a report with the Police Station concerned qua the penal misdemeanors of the Contractor concerned garnering any inference of theirs tacitly conniving with the Contractor concerned. In sequel, the findings of acquittal recorded by the Courts below qua respondents No. 1 and 2 do not want any interference by this Court.
13. In so far as the incriminatory role ascribed by the prosecution qua respondents No. 3 and 4 is concerned the prosecution was enjoined to adduce potent evidence displaying of accused No. 3 standing assigned the duty of watching the felling activities held by the Contractor concerned. Adduction of the aforesaid evidence would constrain a conclusion from this Court ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:19 :::HCHP ...11...
of accused No.3 despite standing foisted with a mandate by the .
appropriate quarters to ensure the Contractor concerned not felling "Chil trees" in excess to the ones permitted to be felled by him under an apposite permission granted to him by the authority concerned, his by permitting their felling by the of Contractor concerned his hence derelicting from his duties, rt dereliction whereof would fasten a formidable incriminatory role qua him. However, for absence of the aforesaid evidence no conclusion other than of the findings of acquittal recorded qua him by the learned trial Court being un-interferable, is warranted.
14. Be that as it may, the accused respondent No. 4 also has not been by forthright evidence displayed to be holding any knowledge qua the illicit felling of tress by the Contractor concerned nor evidence has been putforth by the prosecution in display of his in pursuance to his receiving any monetary consideration from the Contractor concerned, his hence conniving with the latter in his illicitly feeling "Chil trees" growing on the lands of respondents No. 1 and 2, cumulatively with neither firm evidence qua respondent No. 4 holding knowledge qua the illicit ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:19 :::HCHP ...12...
felling of trees by the Contractor concerned nor firm evidence in .
portrayal of his colluding or conniving with the Contractor concerned standing adduced on record by the prosecution, gives momentum to a conclusion of the incriminatory role fastened upon accused No.4 being infirm.
of
15. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, rt this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record.
In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgement is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.
22nd June, 2016 ( Sureshwar Thakur )
™ Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:19 :::HCHP