Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S)442 OF 2019
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Crl.) No(s).
7713/2017)
PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH RESPONDENT(s)
J U D G M E N T
1. None appears for the appellants. We have gone through
the records with the assistance of the learned counsel
for the respondent.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellants were apprehended with a vehicle
carrying 22 logs of Khair wood. They did not produce any
authorization or permit with regard to the same. Their
Signature Not Verified
prosecution under Section 379, IPC read with Sections 41
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2019.03.12
12:37:04 IST
Reason:
and 42 of the Indian Forest Act culminated in acquittal
1
under Section 379, IPC by the Magistrate. The conviction
under the Forest Act was for six months.
4. The conviction under the Forest Act was assailed
before the Sessions Judge in appeal. The appellants were
acquitted as neither the Khair wood logs nor the lorry in
which it was being transported were produced as exhibits.
The independent witness of seizure also did not support.
5. In the appeal against acquittal by the State, the
High Court held that the independent witness did not deny
his signatures on the seizure memo. In view of a sample
of the log having been produced, non-production of the
vehicle was not relevant, reversing the acquittal and
sentencing the appellants under Sections 41 and 42 of the
Forest Act for three months with fine of Rs.500/- with a
default stipulation of one month.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent
in opposition to the appeal and considered the nature of
evidence available. Non-production of the seized wood
and the vehicle, the primary evidence of the offence,
2
renders the prosecution case fragile and unsustainable.
Mere production of the seizure memo does not tantamount
to the production of the seized woods and the lorry.
Unless the seized wood was produced, mere production of a
sample, and there is no material in support that the
sample was out of the same 22 logs, we are unable to
sustain the conviction of the appellants.
7. Since we do not have the benefit of the presence of
the appellants, the status of the sentence is not known.
Even while we acquit the appellants, if they have
undergone the sentence, they shall stand acquitted of the
charge.
8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
......................J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
......................J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 06, 2019.
3