SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). However, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment as was awarded by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, was reduced to one year and the fine of Rs. 500/- as was imposed was enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) Background facts which led to the trial and subsequent conviction of the appellant are as follows : The appellant was a Sub-Inspector of Police. During the trial of Sessions Trial No. 118/90, the Sessions Judge came to a prima facie conclusion that the appellant who was the Investigating Officer in that case in the course of trial fabricated false evidence by surreptitiously inserting the timings in various documents prepared during investigation and that he thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 194 IPC. He filed a complaint before the competent Magistrate who received the same on file and in due course committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. To the complaint were annexed documents in which timings were inserted by the appellant and the copy of his evidence recorded in Sessions Trial No. 118/90. In the said Sessions Trial No. 118/90 four accused persons were tried for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 302 read with Section 34, 394 and 397 IPC. But they were acquitted. The documents in which the appellant was found to have surreptitiously inserted the timings are memorandum, (Exs. P14, P20, P23 and P25), spot map (Ex. P11), Panchnama (Ex. P12 and P13) and Seizure Memo Exs. (P16, P19 and P20). The trial Court as noted above found the accused appellant guilty and directed his conviction. In appeal, the stand before the High Court was that there was no evidence to show that the appellant had done any interpolation in any of the aforesaid documents during the course of trial as he had already mentioned timings in those documents before he had submitted the challan papers in the Court and if the timings were left out in the carbon copies which were supplied to the accused persons it was a bona fide mistake on his part. It was also his stand that the appellant did not give or fabricate false evidence with an intention to procure conviction of the accused persons in the concerned case who were being tried for murder and robbery. The High Court with reference to evidence of PWs 2 and 5 and the statement of the appellant while being examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') held that the conviction was in order.

(3.) The stand taken before the High Court was reiterated by learned counsel for the appellant.