JUDGMENT
M.R. Verma, J.
1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 16-3-1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, whereby the accused-respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) have been acquitted of the accusations under Section 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-3 Jagat Ram along with PW-2 Gudoo Brahmchari and PW-4 Man Chand Thakur, Range Officer, were present at Dora- Nala on 14-6-1992, a Maruti Van HPY-588 driven by PW-1 Hari Singh came there. Accused Piare Ram and Mulu Ram were the other occupants of the said vehicle. On search of the said vehicle 15 small drums each containing 25 Its. of Deodar oil were recovered there from. PW-4 Man Chand Thakur tested the contents of the Drum and found it to be Deodar oil. PW-3 Jagat Ram prepared Ruqua Ex. PW-3/A and sent it for registration of the case whereupon FIR Ext. PW-3/B was recorded in Police Station, Kullu. After completion of the investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet under Section 32, 33, 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 379/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. The accusations to the accused however were put for the commission of offences punishable under Section 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act. On trial by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu he acquitted the accused by his impugned judgment.
3. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the accused.
4. The only non-official witness examined in this case by the prosecution is PW-1 llari Singh the driver of the Van who has not supported the prosecution case. IW-2 Gudoo ,’Brahmchari and PW-3 Jagat Ram, SI, are the police officials and PW-4 Man Chand Thakur is the Forest Official. Thus, their statements has to be read with caution. Though they have by and large supported the prosecution version taut there are contradictions in their statements and there are other circumstances also which render their statements unreliable.
5. There is no dispute that the vehicle was allegedly stopped by them during night time and it is admitted by PW 2 Gudoo Brahmchari, Constable that is was so dark that it was not possible to recognise the human-beings. The fact that it was pitch dark at the relevant time has been admitted by PW-3 Jagat Ram SI also. It is in the statement of PW-1 Hart Singh thai he was carrying 4-5 passengers in the vehicle. Thus, keeping in view the fact that, it was a pitch dark night and according to the driver of the vehicle there were 4 or 5 passengers in the vehicle whereas only two of them have been apprehended, the possibility of the real culprits, if any, having escaped under the cover of night cannot be ruled out in this case and this possibility renders the statements of aforesaid officials PWs. as tin-reliable.
6. According to PW-2 Gudoo Brahmchari, PW-4 Man Chand had met them before the vehicle in question i.e. Taxi HPY 588 was stopped by them. In the cross-examination he explains that the Taxi had come on the spot after about one hour of the time when PW Man Chand had met them. According to PW-3 Jagat Ram SI it was at about 8-30 p.m. that Man Chand met them and the taxi was stopped by them at 10-30 meaning thereby that the taxi was so stopped after two hours of the PW-4 Man Chand joining PWs Jagat Ram and Gudoo Brahmchari. He further explains in his cross-examination that Man Chand was already present at Dora Nala when he reached there and has then clari tied that when he reached at Dora Nala then Man Chand came from the side of Peh-Nala. He has further stated that he along with PW Gudoo Brahmchari had reached on the spot at 8 p.m. whereas PW Man Chand reached there at 8-30 p.m. As per the statement of PW-4 Man Chand in his examination-in-chief PW-3 Jagat Ram and PW-2 Gudoo Brahmchari met him near Dora-Nala and it was thereafter that the Van came there. In the cross-examination, however, lie contradicts himself as also the other two witnesses on this point when he states that the police officials met him after 10 or 15 minutes, of the seizure of the Van and that he was also not aware whether he has reached on the spot first or the police officials had reached the spot earlier. He further goes on to state that when the vehicle was apprehended/they were sitting on the spot. Thus, at different stages of his statement this witness has made self-contradictory statements. In view of these contradictions also the statements of these witnesses cannot be relied upon.
7. One of the most important factor in the case is that according to the prosecution the deodar oil was being carried in the Van which was driven by PW-1Hari Singh. Thus, PW-1 Hari Singh cannot be said to be an independent and reliable person who could have given the correct version about the ownership etc. of the deodar oil. Since the deodar oil was found in the vehicle driven by him, therefore, it cannot be said that he was not in possession of the Deodar Oil. In the event of detection of the illicit transportation of the deodar oil he could thus put the blame on others.
8. It is admitted by PW-3 Jagat Singh, SI the Investigating Officer that it, was the driver of the Van that is PW-1Hari Singh who had informed that the recovered drums were loaded in the vehicle by the accused who had paid Rs. 100/- as a freight for carrying the drums in the Taxi.
9. There is no other cogent: and reliable evidence on the record to prove that the drums in question were loaded in Taxi by the accused. The Investigating Officer ought not to have readily believed the statement of Hari Singh for the reason that he being the driver of the vehicle allegedly carrying the drums containing deodar oil was being driven by him and at the trial it is the same driver of the vehicle who has not supported the prosecution version. Thus, the prosecution version that the deodar oil was being transported by the accused is rendered suspicious and on the basis of the material on record it cannot be held that the deodar oil was being transported without permit by the accused.
10. The learned trial Magistrate had discussed the evidence on record in detail and the conclusions arrived at by him cannot be said to be perverse or unsupportable on the basis of the appraisal of the evidence. Therefore, the acquittal order passed by him on the basis of such conclusions particularly in view of the above discussion does not call for interference by this Court.
11. As a result, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.