THAKUR SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.06.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in Cr. Appeal No. 18/2018 whereby, the learned appellate Court below has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused/applicant as awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, vide its judgment dated 02.05.2018 in Criminal Case No. 148/2013 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500, RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, RI for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 200/- and RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 200/-, respectively with default stipulations.

(2.) As per prosecution story, Complainant Krishna Kumar (PW2) has lodged a report at City Kotwali alleging therein that for the appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III at Janpad Panchayat Dhamtari in the year 2007, the present Applicant/accused alongwith other persons had submitted forged Higher Secondary marksheet for appointment and obtained service in place of qualified persons. They debar the qualified persons and obtained payment for about 4 years. It was further alleged that there is difference in the marks and percentage of the present Applicant's original mark-sheet as well as mark-sheet submitted along with the application form. On the basis of said complaint, the police has registered the offence. During course of investigation, memorandum statement of the Applicant has been recorded and documents/mark- sheet were also seized from him. After competition of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Charges were framed against the Applicant and other co-accused.

(3.) To prove the guilt of the Applicant, as many as 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Statements of the Applicant under 313 of the Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the present case. No defence witness has been examined.