1 2025:CGHC:24980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 560 of 2024 1 - Chhattisgarh State Through Project Range, Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus 1 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Sahangu Ram Gond Aged About 35 Years. 2 - Sahdev S/o Chunuram Gond Aged About 50 Years. 3 - Ramprasad S/o Hansaram Gond Aged About 40 Years. 4 - Sadhuram S/o Sagnu Ram Aged About 50 Years. 5 - Amritlal S/o Ratnu Halba Aged About 50 Years. 6 - Manoj S/o Raju Gond Aged About 35 Years. 7 - Mahar Singh S/o Narsingh Aged About 60 Years. 8 - Vijay S/o Mahar Singh Aged About 25 Years. 9 - Bihau Ram S/o Cheku Ram Gond Aged About 70 Years. 10 - Khiluram S/o Aliram Halba Aged About 25 Years. 11 - Rajim S/o Lakshman Gond Aged About 23 Years. 12 - Nohar S/o Johar Halba Aged About 25 Years. 13 - Ramsai S/o Dashrath Halba Aged About 35 Years. 14 - Chaitram S/o Punauram Halba Aged About 40 Years. 15 - Shyamu S/o Akalu Ram Aged About 30 Years. 16 - Chamar Singh S/o Mangal Singh Aged About 35 Years. 17 - Bhagat S/o Kunwar Singh Aged About 35 Years. 18 - Shyam Singh S/o Amar Lal Singh Aged About 23 Years. 19 - Maniram S/o Ganesh Gond Aged About 26 Years. 20 - Saradhu Ram S/o Bannu Gond Aged About 30 Years. 21 - Ramprasad S/o Sahangu Gond Aged About 50 Years. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.06.18 14:37:55 +0530 2 All are R/o Village Paurkheda, Police Station Mohla , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Suyash Gupta appears on behalf of Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 17/06/2025 1. This Acquittal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.01.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.110/2013 by JMFC, Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), whereby respondents/accused were acquitted of the charges under Section 33(1)(c) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents/accused persons cleared the compartment No.484, 485 of the protected forest situated at forest range Mohla village Paurkheda for cultivation. After inspection, forest range Mohla registered POR No.409/29 on 04.03.2013 and thereafter complaint case was filed. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses and exhibited 49 documents vide Ex.P/1 to P/49. 4. Respondents/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. Respondents/accused, in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that they have been falsely implicated and they have not adduced any defense witnesses. 5. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondents/accused. Hence this Appeal. 3 6. Learned counsel for the the appellant would submit that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and prays to allow the appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would support the order impugned and would submit that the same is well merited and does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the appeal with utmost circumspection. 9. It is well settled that in the matter of appeal against acquittal, the High Courts should not ordinarily set aside the judgment of acquittal in cases where two views are possible. The same principle has been reiterated in the matters of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731] and V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, [(2006) 10 SCC 617]. 10.Admittedly, Ramesh Kumar Pisda (PW-1) and Mastan Singh (PW-2) are the independent witnesses. In the proceedings conducted by the forest officers vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/23, they have categorically stated in their cross-examination that who has cleared the forest by cutting the trees, they are not aware about the same and further they have also stated that they are not in knowledge up to what extent of the forest land has been encroached. Devendra Kumar Shrivastava (PW-3), Assistant Project Ranger also admits that he has not produced any resolution of the village assembly and further admits that for encroachment he has not given any notice to the respondents/accused and has denied that he has lodged a false case against the respondents/accused only on the basis of complaint of the village people. 11. Further, as the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the 4 forest department and no resolution has been filed, so the view taken by the trial Court is possible one. 12. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the finding recorded by the trial Court. 13.In the result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash