RAM KRIPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 19 -6 -1964, one Chet Narain Dubey, who had a Savings' Bank Account No. 165142 at the Head Post Office at Allahabad at one time, had died without leaving any widow or issue. His property rights devolved on his brother Ram Achat Dubey (PW 18). A pass book (Ex. 1), showing a deposit of Rs. 4800.16 np up to 27 -5 -1959, on which date the entries in this pass book end, was said to be missing. Several months later, the Appellant, Ram Kripal, a peon in Tehsil Kadipur in Distt. Sultanpur, was found in possession of that pass -book with the help of which he is alleged to have committed the various offences Under Ss. 419/511 and 465 and 468 and 471 IPC for which he has been convicted. It has been proved, from the entry in the ledger kept at the Head Post Office at Allahabad (Ex. 6), that account No. 165142 of Chet Narain Dubey had been closed on 16 -1 -1962 after the whole balance on that date in the account had been withdrawn and that there was no Savings' Bank Account of Chet Narain Dubey at all at the Post Office after that. Nevertheless, the Appellant is alleged - -to have tried to get a non existing account of the deceased, Chet Narain Dubey, transferred from Allahabad to Kadipur on the strength of the out of date passbook (Ex 1). For this purpose, he is alleged to have made the application dated 7 -10 -1964 (Ex. 4) for the transfer of the account. This application, purporting to have been signed by the alleged depositor Chet Narain Dubey, is on a printed form and the incorrect entries filled in show that the Savings' Bank Account No. 165142 had a balance of Rs. 4800.16 np. of which transfer was sought, from the Allahabad Head Post Office to Kadipur Post Office. It also contains, under the appropriate heading, three purported specimen signatures of Chet Narain Dubey with the date 7 -10 -1964 given below these. This application is said to have been presented to Suraj Bux Singh, PW 10, Savings' Bank Account Clerk of Kadipur Post Office, in Sultanpur, to whom the Appellant is said to have given out that he was Chet Narain Dubey himself. The Post Office at Kadipur, after a counter -signature of the Sub -Postmaster, forwarded the application, together with the pass book (Ex. 1), by registered post to the Head Post Office at Allahabad. On 4 -11 -1964, Jogesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6, sent back the application to the Sub -Postmaster on the ground that the signature on it differed from that on the records of the Post Office at Allahabad. He directed that the signature on the application should be attested by a post office official. Suraj Bux Singh, PW 10, after informing the Appellant that there was an objection to the application, returned it with the pass book to him. The Appellant then approached the postman, Ambika Prasad, PW 8, who, apparently accepting the representation made by the Appellant himself, without making any further inquiry, attested and signed this application showing that it was made by Chet Narain Dubey and returned it to the Appellant. It was sent again to Allahabad. It appears that Jogesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6, Savings' Bank Ledger clerk at the Head Post Office, Allahabad, still not feeling satisfied with this attestation returned it again on 26 -11 -1964. Thereafter, on 1 -12 -1964, the Appellant himself appeared at the Savings' Bank counter of the Head Post Office at Allahabad and presented the pass book (Ex. 1) along with a withdrawal application (Ex. 2) to Baleshwar Lal, PW 1. The withdrawal application (Ex. 2) was also on a printed form and purported to have been signed in Hindi, like the previous transfer application of the supposed Chet Narain Dubey. The date, I - -12 - -1964 and other particulars are in English. The application, wrongly showing Rs. 4800.09 np as the existing balance in account No. 165142, was for the withdrawal of Rs. 4795/ - only. It appears that Baleshwar Lal, PW 1, detected the difference between the signature in Hindi on the withdrawal application and the specimen signature chit of Chet Narain Dubey (Ex.3) in Hindi pasted on the signature book kept at the post office. His evidence also discloses that the Appellant, thereafter, tried to convince Baleshwar Lal, PW 1, that he was the depositor Chet Narain Dubey himself and produced the transfer application (Ex. Ka 4) in the course of this attempt. Baleshwar Lal, PW 1, then passed of the papers to Sri Jogesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6, who, alter comparing the signatures, made an endorsement on the withdrawal application that the signatures differed. This endorsement was also signed by Baleshwar Lal, PW 1. Then, Sri Jamuna Prasad, PW 13, the Assistant Postmaster at the Head Post Office was consulted. He also found that the signatures differed and signed the endorsement. The papers were returned to the Appellant after telling him that the signature on the application differs from the specimen kept. The Appellant then left the Post Office. But, soon he re appeared with the accused Sheo Murat Lal, the Sub -Post Master of Cheoki, who told Baleshwar Lal, PW 1, that he knew the Appellant personally and could identify his signature. The Appellant and Sheo Murat Lal were then taken to Sri Jamuna Prasad PW 13 and in his presence, Sheo Murat Lal wrote on the withdrawal application as follows:

(2.) The accused sub -post master, Sheo Murat Lal, who was charged with abetment of cheating and forgery, by attesting the signatures on the withdrawal application, admitted the attestation by him. He stated that he had gone to Allahabad to draw his salary and that he met the Appellant Ram Kripal by chance on the way. He also stated that the Appellant had represented that he was in great difficulties as he wanted to get his daughter carried, but the post office officials were harassing him. He stated that, when the Appellant showed him the previous transfer application and the attestation of the postman Ambika Prasad, PW 8 countersigned by the post master of Kadipur, he felt satisfied and agreed to verify the signatures as genuine. He, however, admitted his mistake in making the verification so lightly. Sheo Murat Lal was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted by the trial court perhaps to easily. There was, however, no appeal by the State against this acquittal.

(3.) The Appellant, however, denied all connection with the offence and pleaded ignorance of the reason why he had been implicated. He added, rather in consistently, that he had been implicated due to "Ranjish" and also in order that the post office employees may protect themselves. But, he led no evidence whatsoever to show how or why he had incurred the displeasure of the post office officials or employees. Even his attempt to prove that he was at the Tehsil Kadipur on 1 -12 -64 to draw his pay on that date failed miserably. He was arrested at the Tahsil in Kadipur on 30 -4 -1965 by constable Ayodhya Singh, PW 3, made bapardah and lodged in the lockup at police station Kadipur at 11.50 a.m. From there, he was sent bapardah, to the district jail, Sultanpur, on 1 -5 -1965, at 7.15 a.m. on 14 -5 -1965, he was brought bapardah in a train which reached Allahabad late at night. He was shown to have been taken to police station Kotwali bapardah at 12 midnight. But, as there was to be no place at police station Kotwali at that time he was lodged at police station Daraganj at 7.40 a.m. He was sent to Naini Jail on 15 -5 -1965 bapardah. He was put up for identification on 7 -6 -1965 and he was correctly identified by Rasik Behan, PW 12, the Deputy post master, by Jogesh Chandra Bhatta, PW 6, Baleshwar Lal, PW 1 and Ram Narain Yadav, PW 11, a packer, who was working at the head post office on 1 -12 -1964. Out of this five witnesses at the test identification parade, only Jamuna Prasad PW 13, failed to identify him. The identifying witnesses have deposed that the did not know the Appellant from before, that they had no opportunity of seeing him on any occasion between the 1st December, 1964 and the test identification parade on 7 -6 -1965 and then they identified him at the trial as the man who had, on 1 -12 -1964, come to the head post office to withdraw money by representing himself to be Chet Narain Dubey. They had a very full opportunity of seeing the Appellant in broad day light on 1st December, 1964, for a considerable time. Their evidence of identification has not been shaken on any point.