SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against judgment and order dated 28.9.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barnala, by virtue of which the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 218 of Indian Penal Code as well as judgment dated 9.12.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, by virtue of which the appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that ASI Sohan Lal-Petitioner-accused was Investigating Officer of the case FIR No. 56 dated 25.2.2000, under Sections 406/498A IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali Barnala, against Jatinderpal Goel and his family members. During investigation of the case in the said FIR, revisionist has wrongly shown that he has recorded the statement of one witness namely Hari Chand son of Gurdev Singh resident of Rampura on 17.5.2000 despite the fact that said Hari Chand had already expired on 29.11.1999. Jatinder Pal Goel, against whom revisionist was investigating the case, filed a Criminal Misc. No. 5334-M of 2002. In Criminal Misc. No. 43657-M of 2002, this Court, vide order dated 6.2.2002, directed SSP Barnala, to expedite the enquiry against ASI Sohan Lal for recording the statement of Hari Chand on 17.5.2000 and 17.9.2000 whereas said Hari Chand had already expired on 29.11.1999. It was ordered that in case enquiry reveals commission of offence by ASI Sohan Lal or by any other police official and also abetment of the offence by the complainant, then a case should be registered and be proceeded in accordance with law. On the basis of the said order enquiry was conducted by DSP. DSP has found that accused had prepared wrong and incorrect record of statement of Hari Chand under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 17.5.2000 after his death as Hari Chand has already expired on 29.11.1999 as such accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 219/193 and 109 IPC. On the basis of this enquiry report a case was registered. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the learned lower Court for trial.

(3.) The Petitioner was charge sheeted for commission of offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses and closed the evidence. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Petitioner denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded his false implication. However, no defence evidence was led by him. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the Petitioner as noticed above.