RAM NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court Ram Narain, appellant, challenges his conviction for the offences under Sections 467 and 120B, I.P.C. He, along with three others, had been committed for trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota on ten charges for offences under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120B, I.P.C. It is not necessary to reproduce all the charges and it would suffice if we set out the charges under Ss. 467 and 120B, I.P.C. because by the impugned judgment of the High Court the appellant's conviction was sustained only on charges under these two sections. Those charges are:

(2.) Village Khand Gawadi had before October, 1958 a panchayat of which Gangaram (P.W. 3) was the Sarpanch and the appellant its Up-Sarpanch. In the months of April and May, 1958 the appellant officiated for the sarpanch because the latter (Gangaram) was busy in connection with his daughter's marriage. By means of a gazette notification (No. 11288/F.I. (a) 48 L 59/A/55 dated 16-10-58) the Rajasthan Government extended the limits of the municipal council, Kota, amongst other village, to Khand Gawadi also. The Municipal Council took over charges from the Gram Panchayat of this village on January 7, 1959. According to the prosecution version during the months of November, 1959 to January, 1960, long after the village panchayat had ceased to exist, the appellant entered into a conspiracy with the other accused persons (tried along with him in the sessions Court) and Bhanwarlal son of Bapulal (who became an approver and appeared as P.W. 1 in the case) to cheat the members of the public, the Municipal Council, Kota and the Government. The modus operandi for carrying out the object of this conspiracy was to persuade such members of the public as were amenable to their persuasion to part with money for purchasing residential plots in village Khand Gawadi; and in furtherance of this conspiracy they forged sale proceedings and pattas by antedating them and forging signatures of the other panchas on such pattas and sale proceedings. The appellant himself affixed his signatures as Sarpanch and put the seal of the village Panchayat on the forged documents. The trial, as is obvious, from the charges reproduced above, was confined to the sale proceedings and pattas in the names of Mool Singh, Mukat Beharilal and Suraj Singh. Bhanwarlal (P.W. 1) who was also stated to have been a party to this conspiracy was granted pardon and having become an approver appeared as a witness in support of the prosecution. The Sessions Judge, after considering the prosecution evidence and the evidence of the defence witnesses, produced by the appellant, upheld the prosecution case against the appellant holding that he and the approver, Bhanwarlal, had joined hands in forging the sale proceedings and pattas mentioned in the charges and also in forging thereon the signatures of the other Panchas. In fact, according to the trial Court, it was the appellant who had dragged Bhanwarlal into the conspiracy and their activities were motivated by a desire to cheat the Municipal Council, Kota, the members of the public and the Government of Rajasthan by making them part with possession of their valuable land in village Khand Gawadi for nominal price. On this finding the offence of conspiracy under S. 120-B was held proved against the appellant. He was also held guilty of the offence under S. 467, I.P.C. Charges under the other sections were held not proved. The appellant was accordingly sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200 under S. 120B and to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 200 under S. 467, I.P.C. In default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to undergo six months' further rigorous imprisonment in each case. Both these substantive sentences were directed to be concurrent. The other accused persons Bakshi Gajpat Singh, Madan Mohan and Badri Prasad were acquitted.

(3.) On appeal the High Court affirmed the appellant's conviction on both these counts but reduced his sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 15 months and a fine of Rs. 200 on each count. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to be concurrent. In default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months on each count.