1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR
(M.P.)
Criminal Appeal No. 1636/95
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. Solanki
State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs.
Ramlal and four others
Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the
appellant/State.
Shri Imtiyaz Hussain, Advocate for the
respondents.
Date of hearing: 25/06/2010
Date of Judgment: 25/06/2010
JUDGMENT
The appellant/State has filed this appeal against
judgment dated 28.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case
No. 432/1991 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Harda by which the respondents have
been acquitted of the offence under Section 379 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. It is undisputed that the respondent Ramlal S/o
Chhanoo Dahiya alongwith other co-accused Manuj
S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya, Mishrilal S/o. Chhanoo
Dahiya, Sabulal S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya and Chhotelal
S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya were tried for offence
punishable under Section 379 of the IPC and they
were acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class Harda.
2
3. The State of Madhya Pradesh prayed for leave to
appeal against all the acquitted persons under Section
378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but this
Court vide order dated 1.12.1995 granted leave to
appeal only against the respondent Ramlal S/o.
Chhanoo Dahiya.
4. In short, the prosecution case was that on
15.2.87 some employees of Forest Department were
sitting in the field of “Tuar Kapas” lying between
Khudia and Vikrampur road and at about 11.30 p.m.
that some persons were running away with wooden
articles. They were chased. Ramlal S/o. Chhanoo
Dahiya was caught but other persons were fled away.
Roop Singh Rajpoot, Deputy Ranger seized some
pieces of Teak Wood from the possession of
respondent/accused vide seizure memo Ex.P/2. After
usual investigation, accused persons were charge-
sheeted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Harda. They were tried and acquitted by impugned
judgment dated 28.2.1995 as mentioned herein above.
5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that
learned Magistrate has failed to frame proper charges
against the respondents/accused persons. He also
submits that there are certain discrepancies and
contradictions in the evidence of prosecution but they
are minor in nature and do not material or
substantially affect the prosecution case, therefore,
impugned judgment is illegal and liable to set aside.
3
6. On the other hand, Shri Hussain, learned
counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the
paragraph-7 of the impugned judgment and
vehemently argued that seizure memo Ex.P/2 is itself
doubtful. There is a material contradiction in the
statement of prosecution evidence, therefore no
offence is made out against the respondent Ramlal
and trial Court was right in passing the judgment of
acquittal.
7. I have perused the impugned judgment dated
28.2.95 and evidence recorded by the trial Magistrate
and found that there are material discrepancies and
contradictions in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses which goes to the root of the case. The
material document like seizure memo Ex.P/2
prepared at 11.30 p.m. but Jagdish Dubey (PW1) in
his statement stated that incident occurred at 2
O’clock in the night. Other witness Pratap Singh
(PW4) stated that incident occurred at about 12.00 –
1.00 at night. This fact itself shows that there is no
consistency in the prosecution case and seizure memo
which is main basis of prosecution case, is itself
remained doubtful. Further more, prosecution has
also remained failed to establish that so called seized
wood was belonging to prohibited area of Forest
Department.
8. Witness Jagdish Dubey, Beatguard of Forest
Department, admitted in his statement that
respondents/accused persons also held tree of teak
4
wood in their field and he also admitted that he can’t
say that seized wood was belonged to the prohibited
area or the area which is belonging to be holding of
accused respondents.
9. In these facts and circumstances, I am of the
view that trial Court was right in passing the
judgment of acquittal. There is no illegality or
perversity in the impugned judgment. Hence this State
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Respondent Ramlal is on bail. His bail bond
stand discharged.
(G.S. Solanki)
JUDGE
ravi