RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 14.1.2002 whereby appellant Rakesh Kumar was found guilty of offence u/s 420/ 468/ 471/ 363/ 366/506/384/120B IPC and the remaining two accused Chander Shekhar and Sri Chand were held guilty u/s 420/468/471/120B IPC and the order on sentence dated 16.2.2002 whereby appellant Rakesh was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years u/s 366 IPC and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default RI for two years. He was further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years each for offences u/s 420/468/471/363/384 IPC and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. Convict Rakesh was also sentenced to undergo RI for six months each for offences under sections 120B and 506 IPC. Remaining two appellants Sri Chand and Chander Sekhar were sentenced to undergo RI for three years for each of offences u/s 420/468/471 IPC and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each for these offences in default RI for one year each. Convicts are also sentenced to undergo RI for six months u/s 120B IPC.

(2.) Briefly narrated facts leading to these appeals are that on 15.7.92 Smt. Omvati, the mother of prosecutrix Poonam filed a typed application dated 9.7.92 before the SDM, Shahdara, praying for cancellation of the order dated 22.4.92 for issuing a birth certificate in respect of her daughter Poonam Choudhary. In the application Omvati alleged that her daughter's date of birth is 1.3.75 but appellant Rakesh induced Poonam Choudhary for marriage and for this purpose to show her to be major, some lady impersonated as Omvati and obtained the birth certificate dated 22.4.92 on the basis of the application dated 22.4.92. In the application it was further alleged that Rakesh aforesaid has committed a serious offence. Besides Patwari Chandra Shekhar who is appellant herein in Appeal No. 103/2002 neither came to the spot to verify the date of birth nor recorded her statement. On this application of Omvati, SDM passed an order dated 10.08.92 whereby earlier order dated 22.4.92 and the birth certificate dated 22.4.92 was cancelled and the intimation was sent to the SHO for necessary action in the matter. Thereupon, the police registered a case u/s 419/ 468/ 471/ 506 IPC and filed challan in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara against Rakesh Kumar, Sri Chand (Typist) and one Dr. P.D.Gupta who had given a certificate regarding age of Poonam was placed in column No.2 . While considering the question of charge, learned Metropolitan Magistrate felt that case has not been properly investigated. Therefore, vide order dated 20.4.95, learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed DCP (Crime) to get the case thoroughly investigated through some officer not below the rank of Inspector. During further investigation the police recorded the statement of prosecutrix Poonam and other witnesses. In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C , Kumari Poonam stated that on 18.6.92 at about two 2 p.m when she was going towards her uncle's house, appellant Rakesh met her near nallah and on the point of pistol under the threat that if she did not obey her brothers will be killed, took her to temple where he solemnised marriage with her and also got himself photographed with her. During investigation police seized various documents namely original application/ affidavit dated 22.4.92 purporting to have been submitted by Omvati for issuance of birth certificate, the specimen signatures and thumb impression of various suspects. Experts reports received from CFSL and Finger Print Bureau indicated that thumb impression on the application/ affidavit dated 22.4.92 tally with those of appellant Sri Chand who is a private typist and said affidavit was attested by one Rajender Singh, Advocate, Oath Commissioner. It was further revealed during the investigation that appellant Chandra Shekhar who was working as Patwari in the office of SDM was asked to verify the date of birth of Poonam. He submitted a report dated 22.4.92 to the effect that date of birth of Poonam is 1.3.74 and this report was made on the basis of statement of two fictitious persons namely Sri Chand, S/o Radha Kishan and Charan Singh S/o Girdhari. After completing investigation, the police again submitted a challan u/s 420/468/371/366/364A/506 IPC against appellants Rakesh Kumar, Sri Chand, Chandra Shekhar and one Rajender Singh, Advocate who had attested the affidavit dated 22.4.92. After complying with the necessary formalities, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On 22.3.98 learned ASJ framed charges u/s 120B IPC, 420 r/w 120B IPC, 468 r/w 120B IPC 471 r/w 120B and u/s 363/366/ 506/384 IPC against appellant Rakesh Kumar. Appellants Chandra Shekhar and Sri Chand were separately charged u/s 120B IPC, 420 r/w 120B IPC 468 r/w 120B IPC, 471 r/w 120B IPC. Rajender Singh, Advocate/ Oath Commissioner was also charged u/s 120B IPC, 420 r/w 120B IPC, 468 r/w 120B IPC and 471 r/w 120B IPC. In proof of its case the prosecution examined Vijay Kumar PW-1; Omvati PW-2; R.K.Mishra, SDM PW-3; S.P.Singh , LDC PW-4; Poonam Choudhary PW-5; R.N.Shah PW-6; Charan Singh PW-7; ASI Karan Singh, PW-8; Ajay Kumar (Sub-Registrar) PW-9; Inspector Shanti Devi PW-10; Inspector Ved Prabhakar PW-11; Ravinder Kumar PW-12; HC Balbir Singh PW-13; Manoj Sharma PW-14; Sri Chand Jain PW-15; SI Jag Pal Singh PW-16; SI Mohan Ram PW-17; Inspector O.P. Arora PW-18 and Ms. Deepa Verma PW-19.

(3.) In their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C appellants/ accused persons abjured their guilt. After considering the material on record, learned ASJ came to the conclusion that appellant Rakesh Kumar had kidnapped Poonam and performed marriage with her under threat by using force and also tried to extort money from her brothers. Accordingly, learned ASJ held that all three accused persons had entered into a conspiracy and in execution thereof, appellant Rakesh committed offences u/s 420/ 468/ 471/366/ 506/ 384/ 120B IPC by forging documents with a view to obtain birth certificate of Poonam indicating her date of birth as 1.3.74 although her actual date of birth is 1.3.75. Appellant Rakesh Kumar was accordingly convicted u/s 420/468/471/366/384/506/120B IPC. Remaining two convicts namely Sri Chand and Chander Shekhar were convicted u/s 420/468/471/120B IPC. Rajender Singh, Advocate, was acquitted because the original affidavit dated 22.4.92 which was attested by him could not be traced. Appellants were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment as detailed earlier. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have preferred these appeals. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and perused the record.