M.R.VERMA, J.

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 22-4-1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Mandi whereby the respondents accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) have been acquitted of the charge under Section 379, IPC and Section 41 read with Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act.

(2.) Case of the prosecution against the accused, in brief, is that on 22-2-1992 at about 12 noon they came in truck No. HPM 9141 from the side of Kullu and were going towards Mandi. The said truck stopped at Bindravani barrier and one of the accused, claiming to be the conductor, alighted at the barrier where he gave the particulars of the truck and informed that it was empty and got the entries made in the Barrier Register accordingly. After making the entries the forest guard on duty namely. PW-2 Chet Singh checked the truck and found that 48 logs of deodar and two logs of kail were loaded therein. These were got unloaded at the barrier and the concerned Range Officer PW-1 Jai Singh Chandel was informed. The said Range Officer came on the spot and after finding the facts for himself proceeded to the Police Station. Sadar. Mandl and presented complaint Ex. PA to the SHO on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW -9/ A was recorded in the Police Station. The police took in possession the truck inquestion alongwith the timber and took it to the police station. The timber was then given on sprirdari to PW -3 Amar Singh vide memo Ex. PB. During the course of investigation the police took in possession the damage report Ex. PD. the documents of the vehicle and an abstract from the daily register of the barrier Ex. PE. On being satisfied of the commission of the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused the officer incharge Police Station. Sadar. Mandi submitted the charge sheet against the accused to the concerned Court.

(3.) To prove its case the prosecution examined PW-1 Jai Singh Chandel, the complainant. PW-2 Chet Singh, forest guard who initially found the timber in the truck. PW-3 Amar Singh, Deputy Range Officer who was posted as such at Bindravani, Check Post at the relevant time. PW-4 Balak Ram, a witness of the damage report Ex. P0, PW5 Janak Singh who measured and evaluated the seized timber. PW-6 Roshan Singh, the investigating officer and PW-7 Shyam Singh forest guard.

(4.) The statements of the accused under Section 313. Cr. P.C. were recorded wherein they have denied the prosecution case as a whole and have claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the case.

(5.) Finally the accused were acquitted of the charge by learned trial Magistrate, hence the present appeal.

(6.) I have heard the learned AddI. Advocate General for the State and the learned Counsel for the accused and have also gone through the record.

(7.) The basis for the case against the accused is the damage report Ex. PD. It has been drawn by PW-2 Chet Singh against accused Chuni Lal about illicit transportation of timber inquestion. This document appears to have come into being under highly suspicious circumstances. As is evident from the printed contents of the report it is meant for use by the forest official on patrol duty in a protected or reserved forest. Evidently such a report form is not meant for use by the staff on duty at a barrier. It is firmly established ort record that the printed report book of which the form of Damage Ex. PD is a part was never issued to PW-2 Chest Singh who was posted at the barrier in Bindravani, in view of the statement of PW-7 Sham Singh who has stated that the Damage Report Book No. 93 was issued to him and form No. 165 of such book was used by Chet Singh for drawing the damage report. Neither this witness claims to be present at the barrier alongwith the damage report book at the relevant time nor there is any explanation as to how PW 2 Chef Singh came to possess and use the said damage report book.

(8.) PW-1 Jai Singh who reported the matter to the police has stated that on 22-2-1992 on receipt of information from PW-3 Amar Singh Patyal incharge. Check Post. Bindravani that the truck loaded with timber had come at the check post he went there. He has further stated that the information was received through some chowkidar orally as well as in the form of Damage Report No. 165 dated 22-2-1992 i.e. the damage report Ex. PD. It simply means that the said damage report had been drawn, and sent to him before his arrival to the check post. On the contrary, PW -3 Amar Singh has not stated that he had sent the information about the arrival of a truck loaded with timber at the barrier to PW-1 Jai Singh orally and also sent the damage report to him through any chowkidar. On the other hand, his version is that the Range Officer (PW-1) arrived at the spot at 4 P.M. and thereafter the damage report was drawn in his presence PW-2 Chet Singh has also stated that the damage report was drawn in the presence of the Range Officer (PW-1) when he had come to the spot and it was signed by the witnesses in his presence and that he had informed the Range Officer (PW-1) about the incident. Thus the coming into being of the damage report in the ordinary nature of the events is not proved and the contradictory version of the witnesses on this count render it a highly suspicious document having been brought about after deliberations and consultations and not as per the facts.

(9.) As stated above PW-1 Jai Singh reached at the spot at 4 P.M. He has denied the suggestion that when he reached at the check post (barrier) the truck was empty and the timber was lying inside the check post. However. PW-2 Chet Singh has stated that the truck had been unloaded at 2 P M. and the timber was kept on the road. It simply means that PW-1 Jai Singh who reached on the spot at 4 P.M. is not stating the truth while denying the aforesaid suggestion. This conclusion finds support from the admission of PW-3 Amar Singh who has stated that when. Range Officer (PW-1) came on the spot the timber was lying in the premises of the check post and the statement of PW4 Balak Ram who has stated that he came on the spot at about 12.15 P.M. and at that time timber was lying unloaded and the timber was not unloaded from the truck in his presence. Thus what emerges is that the truck was empty and the timber was lying in the premises of the check post when PW -1 Jai Singh reached on the spot. As per his version he then went to the police station reported the matter and returned to the check post alongwith the police and the truck and timber thereafter was seized by the police vide memo Ex. P.B. So is stated by PW -6 Roshan Singh the investigating officer who has further denied the suggestion that the timber was brought to him at the police station. PW-3 Amar Singh, however belies the statements of PW 1 Jai Singh and PW -6 Roshan Singh on this count. He has stated that alongwith PW-1 Jai Singh he had gone to the police station to lodge the report and at that time they had taken the truck and timber alongwith them to the police station. Thus the statements of the material witnesses are contradictory of each other even on this count. Thus these statements cannot be believed to hold that the timber inquestion was transported in the truck inquestion.

(10.) It is stated by PW-2 Chet Singh that sleepers were kept in the truck and on them were the plants having been tightened with iron grill and above them was loaded the sand. Thus according to this witness the, timber was duly concealed having the sand loaded thereon; If it was a fact in the ordinary course of human nature then the conductor would not have informed PW- Chet Singh that the truck was empty but would have informed that the truck was loaded with sand as such information could satisfy PW-2 Chet Singh in view of the existence of sand loaded in the truck. Secondly if iron grills were used to tighten the planks those ought to have been taken in possession by the police and produced in the Court to lend credibility to the statement Of PW-2 Chet Singh. No iron grills appear to have been taken in possession. Even sample of case property i.e. allegedly seized timber has not been produced to corroborate the statements of the material witnesses about seizure thereof.

(11.) PW-3 Amar Singh who in his examination-in-chief states as if he was present on the spot at the time of arrival and checking of the truck has not been named as eye witness thereof in the FIR nor PW.2 Chet Singh states about his presence on the spot at any point of relevant time. Neither PW-2 Chet Singh nor PW -3 Amar Singh states as to who was driving the truck when it stopped to report at the check post. The only independent witness PW-4 Balak Ram does not corroborate the statement of PW-2 Chet Singh that accused Chuni Lal signed the damage report Ex. PD. In any case this damage report has not been put to accused especially accused Chuni Lal under Section 313. Cr. P.C. and. therefore cannot be used as evidence against the accused.

(12.) There is no corroboration of the otherwise vague and unreliable statement of Chet Singh that accused Des Raj was the driver and accused Man Singh was the conductor of the truck at the relevant time.

(13.) Though a copy of the abstract of the register maintained at the check post Ex. PE has been produced in evidence but the evidence that the correctness of the entries made therein was affirmed

by accused Man Singh by putting his signatures in the relevant column has not been led. Even PW-2 Chet Singh has not stated that the original entries in the register were authenticated by accused Man Singh by putting his signatures in the relevant column of the register. The entries in the abstract Ex. PE were also not put to the accused particularly accused Man Singh in his statement under Section 313. Cr. P.C. Therefore for this reason also these entries which are even otherwise not proved in accordance with law cannot be read against the accused. (14.) A reappraisal of the evidence on record thus leads to the only conclusion that the prosecution evidence is discrepant highly contradictory and unreliable and cannot form the basis to convict the accused for the accusations against them. The impugned order of acquittal therefore does not call for interference. (15.) As a result the appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. (16.) The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal dismissed.