SHIV KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 25.2.2006 whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 30.3.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 474 IPC and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-, was dismissed. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge as set out in the impugned judgment are as under :-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the conviction of the petitioner was not sustainable inasmuch as the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Essentially, three points were urged before the Additional Sessions Judge and the same points are being agitated herein. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the courts had overlooked the fact that PW1, PW2 and PW4 were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case on material points. Secondly, it was urged that the trial court as well as the appellate court had completely overlooked two vital documents being letters X-1 and X-2 which were written by the Station House Officer of Police Station Bara Hindu Rao and the Investigating Officer to the department where the petitioner was employed indicating that the petitioner was not involved in any act of forgery and that the conviction of the petitioner would be illegal under Section 474 IPC. Thirdly, it was submitted that the trial court overlooked the fact that no public witnesses were joined in the investigation.

(3.) As regards PW1, PW2 and PW4 turning hostile, the appellate court was of the view that it is a well-settled principle of law that merely because a witness has been declared hostile, his entire evidence is not to be discarded on that ground alone. As regards the overlooking of the vital documents being letters X-1 and X-2, the appellate court observed that these letters had no evidentiary value and had been appropriately dealt with by the trial court in paragraph 16 of the judgment. This view of the appellate court as well as the trial court is based on the circumstance that these letters written by the IO and SHO subsequent to the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner. The appellate court also observed that the positive case against the petitioner has been established as he was found in possession of one driving licence Exhibit-P-103 bearing number 2194/93 in the name of one Mr Kanhiya Lal. The finding recorded in the impugned judgment is that it has been proved on record by PW13, who had come from Regional Transport Office, Jaipur, that licence No.2194, which was recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner, was issued in the name of Prem Narayan and was not in the name of Kanhiya Lal. In this regard Mr Andley, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, drew my attention to paragraph 17 of the judgment of the trial court wherein it is observed as under: