SHEOPUJAN DHAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad whereby it confirmed the conviction of Sheopujan Dhar and Jagdambika Dhar under Section 419 read with Section 34 I.P.C. but varied their conviction under Section 420 read with Section 511 I.P.C. The sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge under the first charge was maintain ed while the sentence of 3 years and fine of Rs. 200/- imposed under the second charge was reduced to 1 1/2 years R.I., with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default further 3 moths R.I. The sentences were term concurrently.

(2.) According to the prosecution it appeals that on November 2, 1969 four cultivators of the village Imilia, namelv, Sheopujan Dhar, Jagdambika Dhar, Uma Shankar and Sarjoo Dhar under the assumed names of Lalta; Kashi, Awadh Pershad and Kamta respectively, approached Jagdish Narain Tripathi P.W. 1 who was in charge of Bansi Seed Store and whose duty it was to distribute seeds to Bhumidars and Sirdars of Bansi Block, for a bond prescribed for the purpose. The bond Ex.1, was obtained on that day and on November 20, 1960 these four persons along with one Gafoor under the assumed names of Rahim came to Jagdish Narain and gave the bond duly executed for obtaining 34 mds. of grain for seed. This application was duly verified by Rudra Lekhpal. P.W. 1., however, found that they were not entitled to 34 mds. but only to 18 mds. and 30 seers and accordingly he corrected the figure in the bond and took the signatures of the applicants. He also signed opposite to their signatures against the Correction. Inasmuch as Rudra Lekhpal had verified the application for 34 mds. of seed, P.W. 1. asked them to bring him so that he could also I make the necessary correction in his verification. Accordingly, Suraj Dhar went to bring the Lekhpal but returned after sometime with the information that he was not available. P.W. 1, asked Jagdambika to verify the signatures and thumb impression of the cultivators on the bond and accordingly he verified the signatures and thumb impressions Ka 5, and signed it. As there was not sufficient quantity in the godown, P.W I could only give 9 mds and 10 seers of seeds which was kept in four bags and delivered it to the cultivatOrs. With respect to the balance of 9 mds. and 20 seers, he was to make arrangement. Gafoor appears to have taken charge of these bags. Just then, it appears, Ram Swarth P.W. 4, and Sheo Pershad, P.W.5, residents of Asner village which is adjoining Imilia village in which the four cultivators reside, had come to P.W. 1, for obtaining seed. On being asked by P.W. 1 to verity the bond form Exh. 1 as they were the residents of the neighbouring village, P.W. 4 and P.W.5 revealed that the four cultivators and Rahim were imposters. When the witnesses disclosed their real names, the five of them , started to run and were chased. Two of them Jagdambika and Uma Shankar were apprehended while the 3 others escaped. Immediately on F.I.R. was prepared and issued at 3.30 p.m. All the five were charged with offences under Section 420/34 and Section 419/34 but as Uma Shankar had absconded the case was tried against the four.

(3.) The accused claimed that they were falsely implicated, that the signatures and thumb impressions on Exh. 1 were not theirs that the witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 were inimically disposed to them and that their identification was a mistake. The signatures and thumb impressions of the accused were sent to the Handwriting expert Lila Ram for his opinion after comparing them with their admitted signatures and thumb impressions. The evidence of the expert was challenged in the ground that he did not give any reasons for coming to the conclusion that the disputed thumb impressions were the same as those in Exh. 1 but the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the High Court on a review of the experts evidence accepted his opinion.