Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. vs Sher Singh And Ors. on 30 December, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1998CRILJ3191
Author: Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Bench: M. Srinivasan, Lokeshwar Singh Panta
JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
1. This appeal is at the instance of the State and is directed against the judgment dated 15-6-1985 passed by Special ide, Shimla in case No. 13-/7/1983, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 379/411/420/467/468/471/ 167/218/109/34/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. The prosecution case as disclosed from the judgment of the Special Judge may be briefly stated as under:
3. During the investigation of case FIR No. 69/ 1977 of Police Station, Chopal by Shri Sukh Ram the then D.S.P., it came to light that respondents Mohar Singh and Jhina Singh had felled and removed trees from the Government land in connivance with the officials of Revenue and Forest Department. On such conspiracy having come to light, a report was accordingly made at Police Station, Chopal by the above said D.S.P. On the basis of the report First Information Report No. 114 of 1977 came to be registered and the investigation was entrusted to the State CLD, Himachal Pradesh.
4. During the course of the investigation, it was found that eight cases of private sale of trees in Chak Demarcated Forest Thanal, had been submitted by respondents Mohar Singh and Jhina Singh to the Conservator of Forests, Shimla. Permission was sought through applications supported by affidavits and copies of revenue papers to fell the trees from the land described in the applications. In their affidavits the owners of the trees declared that the trees had been sold by them to respondents Mohar Singh and Jhina Singh. The Conservator of Forests sent those applications to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal for scrutiny and report and the Divisional Forest Officer further sent them to the Range Officer, Throach for reporting whether felling of trees could be permitted or not. The Range Officer, Throach reported that on certain parcels of land felling had taken place within past 15 years and therefore, on those numbers the felling could no! be permitted. In respect of certain other Khasra Nos. he did not raise any objection. On the basis of the report of the Range Officer, Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal approached the Conservator of Forests for according permission to fell the trees from those Khasra Nos. where the felling had not taken place earlier. The Conservator of Forests accordingly permitted the marking of the trees and directed that the trees should be marked by some senior Forest officer after permitlting the demarcation from some revenue officer not below the. rank of Naib Tehsildar. The Divisional Forest Officer endorsed that order to respondent Hem Raj Sood, who was then posted as Assistant Conservator of Forests for execution. Shri Hem Raj Sood went to the site in the company of respondent Beer Singh, who was then posted as Block officer, respondent Sher Singh (since died) who was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) and respondent Had Dass, who was posted as Kanungo at the relevant time. The Revenue officers demarcated the land on spot and the trees were marked by respondents S/Shri Hem Raj and Beer Singh with hammer No. 239. The demarcation and marking of the trees were carried out by the above said persons from 13-7-1976 to 17-7-1976. Lists and the abstract sheets of the marked trees were prepared and signed by all the above named persons. Respondents Hari Dass recorded a certificate on the abstract that no tree had been marked on the Government land and that all the marked trees stood on those eight Khasra numbers on which the marking had been permitted. According to those lists and the abstract 391 trees had been marked on Khasra No. 4 shown to be belonging to Attar Singh etc., which in fact was part of Government demarcated protected forests. Khasra No. 5 owned by Attar Singh Khasra No. 8 by S/Shri Devia and Budhia, Khasra No. 9 by Devi Singh and Khasra Nos. 19, 20, 10 and 11 by KimaRam. The marking list and abstract were submitted by respondent Shri Hem Raj Sood to the Divisional Forest Officer. In the meanwhile, respondents Mohar Singh and Jhina Singh sold the trees in their standing position to M/s. Himachal Traders of which respondent Vijay Kumar and Rattan Chand were the partners. M/s. Himachal Traders got the trees felled through agent respondent Magna Nand prior to the issuing of the felling permission. The felled trees were converted into timber. Respondent Magna Nand submitted a list of timber extracted from the felled trees and sought the permission of Divisional Forest Officer by submitting three applications to launch and export: the timber. Respondent Satya Devi Sharma who was then posted as Range Officer, Throach, respondent Beer Singh and Relu Ram recorded certificates on the lists of the timber to the effect that the entire timber incorporated in the lists had been extracted from the trees marked on the private land and that no timber of illicit origin or T.D. (Timber distribution) had been mixed up with the said timber. On the basis of those certificates, Range Officer Throach recommended the issue of export timber in favour of M/s. Himachal Traders and the Divisional Forest officer accordingly permitted the export of the timber. During the investigation of the case substantial part of the timber was seized by the Police in FIR No. 69/77 and the remaining timber was seized dring the investigation of the present case.
5. The record of the case had been seized by the Police during the investigation of the case. Sample finger prints of those persons by whom the applications and the affidavits purported to be thumb marked had been taken and sent to the Director of Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur along with the applications and affidavits for comparison and report. The Director reported that thumb impressions on the applications and affidavits of certain persons did not tally with the sample finger prints. The affidavits bearing the forged thumb impressions of those persons had been attested by the Oath Commissioner on the identification of respondents S.L. Sharma, Mohar Singh and Bhcem Singh. The investigation further re-vealed.that respondents Mohar Singh, S.L. Sharma and Bheem Singh identified some fake persons as deponents to the Oath Commissioner. During the course of investigation, it was found that Khasra No. 4 is owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh and possessed by the Forest Department, but respondent Hari Ram who was then posted as Patwari showed it to be belonging to Attar Singh and Jai Singh etc. in the copy of the Jamabandi which he allegedly issued to respondents Mohar Singh and Jhina Singh. On the basis of this Jamabandi, the Divisional Forest officer permitted the marking and felling of trees on Khasra No. 4 also. It was found that respondent Hari Ram not only issued a false copy of Jamabandi in respectof Khasra No. 4, but also forged the Khasra Girdawari relating to said number by striking the name of the State Himachal Pradesh in the column of ownership and the name of the forest Department under column of the possession and further recorded the name of Attar Singh and Jhina Singh etc. in the Khasra Girdawari. Respondent Hari Ram issued false copy of Jamabandi and forged Khasra Girdawari intentionally.
6. The prosecution further alleged that Divisional Forest Officer permitted the felling of the trees from Khasra Nos. 4,5, 8 and 9 only and specifically ordered that trees should not be felled from Khasra Nos. 19, 20, 10 and 11. But M/s. Himachal Traders got the trees felled' through agent respondent Magna Nand from Khasra Nos. 19, 20, 10 and 11. Respondents S.D. Sharrna, Range officer, Beer Singh, Block Officer and late Relu Ram, Forest Guard failed to take any action against M/s. Himaclial Traders and allowed the partners of M/s. Himachal Traders felling of trees prior to the issuance of the felling permission. Further all of them recorded false certificates on the lists of timber submitted by respondent Magna Nand that the entire timber included in the lists had been extracted only from those trees which had been permitted to be felled.
7. During the investigation, the Police obtained the demarcation of those private Khasras on which marking had been permitted through Shri K. L. Gautam, Collector, Santosh Singh Naib Tehsildar and Prem Sukh, Patwari. Shri Pritam Singh Block officer and Shri Atma Ram, forest guard were asked to count the stumps demarcated by Sh. K.L. Gautam etc. and the demarcation and the stumps counting showed that as against 391 trees shown to have been marked on Khasra Nos. 4,5,8,9,19,20,10 and 11 only 47 trees had been marked on and felled from Khasra Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 20 and 55 trees were found to have been marked on and felled from Khasra Nos. 17 belonging to Hira Singh and 14 and 18 owned by Ganga Ram and Dhamia, though no tree had been shown to have been marked on those numbers. 308 new stumps out of which 289 were of marked trees were found in demarcated protected forests Thanal comprised in Khasra Nos. 1,7,25,12 and 13 and some old stumps were also found on the Government land. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, the prosecution alleged that there was conspiracy to marking and felling of trees from the demarcated protected forest Thanal by the respondents and applications and affidavits attached with the applications were forged and false copies of the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari were prepared and issued by the respondents in connivance with each other and the revenue as well as forest officials being public servants obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves ortheir co-accused and thereby caused loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh.
8. On the basis of these allegations, a charge sheet was framed and filed by the Police against the respondents in the Courtof the learned Special. Judge. The Special Judge on the basis of the material available on record charged the respondents who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, wherein they denied having marked or felled trees from the Government land or the other acts which according to the prosecution constitute conspiracy, they alleged that all the applications and affidavits were genuine. Respondent Hari Ram denied that copy of jamabandi had been falsely prepared by him. As regards the allegation of forgery of Khasra Girdawari, he pleaded that he happened to strike the names of the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Forest Department under the columns of ownership and possession respectively under some bona fide mistaken belief. The Special Judge formulated as many as 14 points for determination and answered them in the negative as a result of which the respondents were acquitted. It is this judgment of acquittal which is under challenge in this appeal.
9. During the pendency of the appeal respondents Sher Singh and Rattan Chand had died and the appeal against them stood abated. Respondent Relu Ram was already dead during the trial and his name has been wrongly impleaded as party No. 6 in the memorandum of appeal.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parti es at great length. We have been taken through oral and documentary evidence. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General vehemently urged that there was material on record sufficient enough to bring home the charge against the respondents and the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge were liable to be set aside. The demarcation as given on spot by Santosh Singh and PW K.L. Gautam were perfectly legal and valid. The conclusion drawn by the learned Special Judge discarding such reports were not in conformity with law. Having heard Shri Chauhan, we do not find any ground to interfere with the reasonings and conclusions of the learned Special Judge and we proceed to record our reasons for the same.
11. To establish allegations of conspiracy the prosecution relied upon the evidence of two witnesses namely Shri Chattar Singh (PW-18) and Shri K.L. Gautam (PW-46). Initially the appellant engaged one Shri Santosh Singh Naib Tehsildar for the purpose of demarcation of private land of Chak Thanal in respect of which application for permission to fell the trees had been moved. After Shri Santokh Singh submitted his report of demarcation, the Government conferred the powers of Collector upon PW Shri K.L. Gautam, Under Secretary in the Revenue Department to enable him to give the demarcation. PW Shri K.L. Gautam went to the site for the purpose of verifying if the demarcation given by Shri Santosh Singh was correct or not. PW Chattar Singh, Assistant Conservator of Forest accompanied him to the site for the purpose of counting the stumps on the spot. PW Shri K.L. Gautam stated that he went to the site on 17-5-1978 and completed the job of demarcation on that very day. He said that he had with him demarcation report (Ext. PD/24) submitted by Shri Santosh Singh and the Field book (Ext. PD/40), list of fields (Ext. PD/ 41) and spot Map (Ext. PD/42) attached with the report (Ext. PD/44) at the time of execution of his job. He admitted that on verification, he found that the demarcation given by Shri Santosh Singh was correct. He prepared his own report (Ext. PD/ 23) which according to him may be read as part of his testimony.
12. On a careful scrutiny the learned Special Judge noticed that the report (Ext. PD/24) and the other documents attached therewith were not available to Shri K.L. Gautam at the time of his visit to the area for the purpose of verification of the demarcation report submitted by Shri Santosh Singh. The demarcation report (Ext. PD/23) bears the date 17-5-1978 while the dates of other documents attached therewith had been changed by cutting/over-writing. Field Book (Ext. PD/4O) bears the signatures of Patwari Prem Singh who prepared it and Shri Santosh Singh on whose behalf it was prepared. The date below the signature of Prem Singh was 21-5-1978 while the original date below the signatures of Shri Santosh Singh was 21 -5-1978. The dates under the signatures of S/Shri Prem Sukh and Shri Santosh Singh had been re-written in such a way so as to make it read 17-5-1978. It is found by the learned Ses sions Judge that the date on the list of fields (Ext. PD/42) below the signatures of Patwari had also been changed from 22-5-1978 to 17-5-1978. Similarly, the date below the signatures of Prem Sukh and Shri Santosh Singh on the spot map had been changed from 21-5-1978 to 17-5-1978. All this shows that the documents attached with the report (Ext. PD/23) had not come into existence on 17-5-1978 and thus, the question of their being available to PW Shri K.L. Gautam could not arise. The testimony of Shri K.L. Gautam has not been relied upon by the learned Special Judge on another ground as well. lt has come in the evidence of Shri K.L. Gautam that Shri Santosh Singh handed over his report to him in the morning of 17-5-1978 along with its enclosures. It is further stated by him that the report had been cleared by Shri Santosh Singh on 16-5-1978 in the evening but the report was dated 17-5-1978 and not 16-5-1978. In the face of this evidence, the learned Special Judge was right in saying that report Ext. PD/23 was not available to Shri K.L. Gautam nor the enclosures attached therewith at the time of verification and it is not believable how Shri K.L. Gautam could verify that the demarcation given by Shri Santosh Singh was correct or not. It has come in the examination-in-chief of this witness that the demarcation given by him was complete in itself and was independent of the one given by Shri Santosh Singh. But in his cross-examination, he stated that he was able to complete the job in just one day because he did the checking in the same way as a cook would do by checking two-three grains of rice from the boiling pot, to find out if the dish was ready or not. It is not believable that the witnesses could demarcate the entire forest in one day and it has come in the evidence that Shri Santosh Singh took four full days from 13-5-1978 to 16-5-1978 in demarcating the same forest. It cannot be definitely said that he demarcated the land himself and his report was complete by itself. Reading of his report shows that his report is contrary to the spot map (Ext. PD/42) which was attached with the report Ext. PD/24 by Shri Santosh Singh. The spot map was traced by him from the momi in which nook 52 karam and 45 karam of Khasra No. 3 were not mentioned whereas the first nook has been mentioned by this witness in his report. It is not mentioned by the witness as to who had set up the Burjis and when. It is also not mentioned by him in the report as to what procedure or method was followed by him to ensure that those pillars remained undisturbed since their erection. It has come in the evidence of Shri I.D. Sharma, (PW-32) the then Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal that several pillars erected by the Forest Department had been dislocated by the local people in Throach range and Chak Thanal admittedly falls in that range. The land was situate in Thanal Demarcated Forest Estate as is clear from the copies of revenue record (Exts. PD/25 to PD/39). It was necessary to refer to the record of forest Department for proper and right location of the pillars. In this context a reference is made to the statement of Shri R.C. Sharma (PW 31) Conservator of Forests, who stated that the situation of pillars erected by the Forest Department can be ascertained by making a reference to the boundary register maintained by the Forest Department. A demarcated protected forest is always bounded by the pillars set up by the Forest Department and PW Shri K.L.Gautam admitted in his cross-examination that he did not refer to any record maintained by the Forest Department at the time of carrying out the demarcation. PW Shri Chattar Singh who counted the stumps on the land demarcated by PW Shri K.L. Gautam has admitted in the cross-examination that the record maintained by the Forest Department had not been consulted nor was the same available on the spot. It has not come in the evidence that the stumps allegedly on Government Khasra Nos. were inside the pillars set up by the Forest Department around the entire area forming the demarcated protected forest Thanal. Even PW Shri Chattar Singh who counted the stumps has not stated that any stump was found inside the pillars. On the basis of this evidence, it can safely be inferred that the stumps bearing land shown to be part of demarcated protected forest Thanal by Shri Santosh Singh and Shri K.L. Gautam in their reports Exts. PD/24 and PD/23, respectively, is in fact not a part of demarcated protected forest Thanal. Jai Ram (PW 1), Kewal Ram (PW 2), Sita Ram, (PW 3) Attar Singh, (PW 4) Jai Singh, (PW 5), Ran Bhadur Singh (PW 6), Partap Singh (PW 7) Budhia (PW 8), Ganga Ram (PW 9), Hari Singh (PW 10) and Indar Singh (PW 11) are the land owners and all of them have stated that there were trees on their land and that those trees had been sold by them to respondents Mohar Singh and Jhina Singh and received price from them. They have stated that the trees were marked from their land and no tree was marked and felled from the Government forest land. Thus, the testimony of them "it nesses also makes doubtful the allegations of the prosecution that the trees were marked and felled from the demarcated protected forests. If the prosecution story is believed that the trees were marked and felled from the Government land, then there was no need for respondents Mohar Singh and Jhina Singh to have paid the price of the trees to the land owners.
13. The demarcation of boundaries of any holding, field or any portion of any other estate under Section 107 of the Act is otherwise a statutory function of quasi-judicial nature of the Revenue Officer as held in Radha Soami Satsang Beas through Shri Madan Gopal Singh v. State of H.P. ILR (1984) Him Pra 317 : (AIR 1985 Him Pral5).
14. Since the function to demarcate the limits of any holding or field is a statutory function of a quasi judicial nature, it is, therefore, absolutely necessary for the Revenue officer, while carrying out demarcation, to perform the function in accordance with the instructions and guidelines, which have been issued by the Financial Commissioner under the powers contained in Section 106 of the Act meticulously without any deviation therefrom, since i t also affects valuable rights of the estate right holders. The report of demarcation on the face of it must show that all precautions which are required to be taken as per the instructions were taken, so as to enable the Court, when the report comes before it to follow the method adopted by the Revenue officer while carrying out the demarcation and to find out that no mistake has been committed in doing so, so as to avoid the possibility of any error having crept in. All the requirements in our opinion, have been incorporated in the instructions with the ultimate object of ascertaining that while carrying out the demarcation correct method was adopted and no mistake was committed. In the present case, the reports of Santosh Singh and PW K.L. Gautam demarcating officers have not relayed the bounda-11 ries of the fields sought to be demarcated from the Shajra (village map) prepared at the last settlement. They were required to locate three permanent points on three different sides of the area sought to be demarcated. The three points so selected and to be taken as basis must be those which are admitted to have remained undisputed from the last settlement. Thus, it can be seen that PW K.L. Gautam did not follow the instructions while carrying out the demarcation and, as rightly noticed by the learned Special Judge, no reliance on his report can be placed so as to form the basis for holding the respondent guilty of the charges.
15. S. I. Shri Dhan Dev (PW 99) stated that during the course of investigation he had received report (Ext. PS/81) from the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal complaining that two old stumps in Thanal forest bearing numbers 13/66 and 7/67 were of the trees granted under the T.D. scheme. This report has not been legally proved by the prosecution by examining Divisional Forest officer who reported the matter to the Police and the exhibition of this report will not prove the con-lents thereof. The respondents have not been afforded opportunity by the prosecution to cross-examine the author of this report and therefore, the learned Special Judge is right in holding that no reliance can be placed upon this report. On perusal of statements of stumps (Exts. PD/9 to Ext. PD/21) prepared by PW Chattar Singh, there is no mention in these lists that any of the old stump found on the spot bore T.D. Nos. 13/66 and 7/67. Thus, there is no evidence on record to hold that some stumps of T.D. marking were there on the site where the respondents have marked the trees.
16. There is not an iota of evidence on record to prove that the unmarked trees the stumps of which were found on the spot had been felled by the respondents. So far as the allegation that the certificates were false with respect to Khasra Nos. 10, 19 and 20 is concerned, suffice it to say that there is nothing on the record to substantiate the allegations of the prosecution that felling permission in respect of these four Khasras has been declined by the forest officials. According to felling order (Ext. PS/27) issued by the Divisional Forest officer, felling was not allowed from the land in two cases because that land was in the cultivation of the tenants and the Deputy Commissioner, Shinrila had injuncted the felling of the trees from the land in possession of the tenants. The particulars of these two cases or the description of the land involved in those two cases were not given in the order itself. Thus, it cannot be ascertained as to on which land felling was not allowed out of the land involved in all 51 cases on which marking had been done. From the perusal of the copies of J amabandies and Khasra Girdawari for the period 1973-74 and 1976-78, it is clear that Kima Ram and others were shown as owners of Khasra Nos. 10, 11, 29 and 20 and in possession of these Khasra numbers. Since these Khasra numbers are recorded in possession of the owners themselves and since the felling had been disallowed only from those numbers which were in possession of the tenants, it cannot be said that felling from these four numbers had not been permitted by the Divisional Forest officer.
17. In Jamabandi (Ext. PA/11-A) relating to Khasra No. 4, Attar Singh etc. have been shown as owners of the said Khasra numbers. It is alleged that the change in the Khasra Girdawari (Ext. PS/ 14) and issue of false copy of Jamabandi were the handi-work of respondent Hari Ram who was then posted as Patwari and was the custodian of the Khasra Girdawari and the Jamabandi. Shri R.K. Jain (PW 44) an handwriting expert has opined that these writings are in the hand of respondent Hari Ram. Respondent Hari Ram under Section 313, Cr.P.C. admitted change in the Khasra Girdawari in his own hand but the change was made on account of some bona fide mistake. The change in Khasra Girdawari (Ext. PS/14) has no connection with the alleged commission of crime, as this document is not shown to have been used at any stage in connection with the marking of the trees or for proving title of Attar Singh etc. qua Khasra No. 4. It is not proved that any harm was caused or intended to be caused to the State of Himachal Pradesh by respondent Hari Ram by changing the entry of Khasra Girdawari and it cannot be said that the change was actuated by dishonest or fraudulent intention and thus, the change cannot be said to amount to forgery. The handwriting expert had not expressed any opinion about the change of Khasra No. 4 to some other Khasra Number in the name of Attar Singh etc. It has not been proved that the cuttings and overwriting on Jamabandi (Ext. PA/11 -A) was made by respondent Hari Ram and this copy was admittedly obtained by PW Jai'Singh whose name has been shown as owner along with Attar Singh. Thus, it is not proved that the alleged forgery of Khasra Girdawari and the false certification of copy of Jamabandi were made by respondent Hari Ram with dishonest intention or these documents had been forged by him. It has come in the evidence of PWs. Kewal Ram and Jai Singh that the marking of the land had been done by respondent Hem Raj Sood on the basis of the demarcation given by respondent Hari Dass in the presence of the land-owners. It has also come on the record that at the time of demarcation carried out by Shri Santosh Singh and PW K.L. Gautam, the land owners were not associated and it cannot be said that the demarcation conducted by the Police during investigation was properly conducted by the Revenue officers as the land owners were never associated during those demarcations. The learned Special Judge has held that the thumb impressions and signatures found on the applications and affidavits of the land-owners at the time of applying for the permission of felling of trees were found forged by the respondents. There is no positive evidence to suggest that those thumb impressions and signatures were not appended by the land owners. The director Finger Prints Bureau has also not ruled out the possibility that the persons whose prints are opined to be forged might have affixed some impressions other than the impression attributed to them and the scribe while writing their names erred, as he compared each fingerprint on the document with the sample finger print on the document with the sample finger prints of the person whose print that purported to be and not with the sample finger prints of other persons also whose purported prints too appeared on the same documents. There is nothing on record to prove that the respondents Government servants namely S/Shri Sher Singh, Hem Raj Sood, Hari Dass, S.D. Sharma and Beer Singh knew that the affidavits submitted in the office of Conservator of Forests were forged. These officers had no occasion to scrutinize the affidavits and applications of the land owners as they were directly sent to the Conservator of Forests who in turn sent them to Divisional Forest officer Chopal.
It is admitted by both the sides that Land Preservation Act was not enforced in the area at the time when the demarcation of the land and the marking of the trees took place, nor there was any necessity for M/s. Mohar Singh and Jhina Singh to get themselves registered as private contractors. These respondents could purchase the trees standing on the private land and the Forest Department could participate in the demarcation if they were registered lessees. Respondents Hem Raj Sood, S.D Sharma and Beer Singh were the officials subordinate to the Divisional Forest officer and they participated in the demarcation under the orders of the Divisional Forest Officer. Thus, it cannot be said that these forest officials participated in the demarcation of their own accord and in connivance with Mohar Singh and Jhina Singh in demarcating the forest land for. the purpose of cutting of trees. In view of the prosecution failure to prove that any tree had been marked and felled from the Government land, it could not be said that certificate recorded by respondent Beer Si ngh, S.D. Sharma and late Relu Ram on the list of timber was false and these officials have obtaincd any pecuniary advantage for themselves or their co-respondents. There is not an iota of evidence on the file to show that respondents Vijay Kumar and Rattan Chand directed felling operation on behalf of M/s. Himachal Traders. On the contrary the evidence on record suggests that it was Krishan Kumar who has since died who acted as managi ng partner of the firm at the time of marking and felling of the trees. Therefore, no case is made out against respondents Vijay Kumar and Rattan Chand. This Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Laxmi Nand, (1992) 2 Sim LC 307: (1992 Cri LJ 3226) in the same facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the appeal of the State against the acquittal of the accused therein. Similarly, some of the respondents who were parties in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1984 and Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1984 which were decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 11 th April, 1996 ?Reported in (1996) 2 Sim LC 370 were also acquitted of the same charges, in respect of FIR Nos. 86 and 87 of 1977.
18. In the result, we uphold the judgment of the acquittal of the Special Judge and dismiss the appeal. Bail bonds are discharged.