Surinder Singh, J.@mdashThe State has challenged the acquittal of the Respondents, passed by the learned trial Court in Case No. 20-1 of 1998, on 10.1.2001, u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard and gone through the evidence on the record.
3. Precisely the case of the prosecution is that on 22nd December, 1997, when the forest officials were planting sapling of Cheel trees on government land, Respondents are alleged to have uprooted them in the presence of PW10 Forest Guard Liaq Ram and did not allow them to carry out further work. PW10 aforesaid also chalked out the damage report Ext.PW10/A only against Respondent Chandu Devi wife of Sunder Singh and their daughter Respondent Kamla Devi. The presence of Respondent Sunder Singh has not been shown in the damage report.
4. The matter was reported to the police, which culminated into FIR No. 154/97 (Ext.PW8/B) in Police Station, Chopal. Police swung in to action. They visited the spot, recovered the uprooted saplings, and thereafter got the place of alleged incident demarcated from PW3 Naib-Tehsildar P.C. Sharma.
5. From the trend of the cross-examination, it is apparent that the Respondent Chandu Devi claimed the disputed land to be her own allotted to her under Nau-tor rules. The prosecution witnesses did not state about the presence of all the Respondents on the spot at the time of alleged incident. PW4 Ganga Ram stated that the plantation was uprooted only by Chandu Respondent and did not say anything about other Respondents, thus he was declared hostile, but remained struck to his version and in cross-examination, admitted the litigation of his family with Chandu Devi Respondent.
6. Further PW5 Mast Ram is another witness, who was allegedly working as a labourer at the relevant time. His signatures did not find mentioned in the damage report. He also stated that the uprooted plants were handed over by the labourers to the Forest Department, but PW8 Yashwant Singh Investigating Officer stated its recovery vide memo Ext.PW1/A from a Nallah.
7. To prove this fact, prosecution examined PW3 Naib-Tehsildar P.C. Sharma, but his testimony is of no avail to the prosecution for the simple reason that he had not demarcated the land in accordance with the rules framed by the Finance Commissioner in this behalf. He also did not say on what basis he had demarcated the land and whether the accused or the adjoining land owners were present at that time and how pacca point was fixed by him. He also stated to have prepared Tatima of the place of alleged place, which was not placed and proved on the record by the prosecution. Even there is no Jamabandi showing the ownership and possession of the State Government. On the top of it, the prosecution also failed to prove that it was a protected forest and the accused had committed such an offence within the said forest. There is no notification on record to this effect.
8. Further the perusal of the damage report, which was allegedly chalked out by PW10 Forest Guard Liaq Ram, shows that the alleged incident had taken place in his presence, but when he stepped into witness box, he stated that he visited the spot after about a week and was not an eye witness and he was informed by Chowkidar that the plantation was uprooted by the Respondents. Even the Chowkidar has not been examined to substantiate his plea. The witnesses PW4 Ganga Ram and PW5 Mast Ram examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and their names also did not find mentioned in the damage report Ext.PW10/A as witnesses as also in the FIR Ext.PW8/B.
9. The other alleged forests labourers PW6 Dulla Ram and PW7 Vir Singh were declared hostile as they did not support the case of the prosecution. Further the prosecution has also failed to prove under whose authority and order the plantation was being carried out in the month of December, 1997, in the land in question.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the case of the prosecution lacks probity, as such the acquittal of Respondents cannot be interfered with. The appeal sans merits accordingly dismissed.
11. The Respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them during the proceedings of this case.
12. Send down the records.
