TARSEM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision arises out of a judgment dated 17.12.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in Crl.Appeal Nos. 28 of 9.11.1999, 45 of 4.11.1999 and 46 of 4.11.1999, affirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court under Sections 120-B IPC, 419 IPC, 420 IPC, 467 IPC, 468 IPC and 471 IPC. However, learned appellate Court has reduced the jail sentences awarded by learned trial Court as under : Name of the accused Convicted under Sections Sentence imposed by the trial Court Sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, accused-appellant Rishi Pal Rana was selected for recruitment as a Constable in Chandigarh Police. He was required to obtain a Medical Certificate from General Hospital, Chandigarh. Appellant-ASI Tarsem Singh was deputed from the Police Lines, Chandigarh to accompany Rishi Pal Rana and other recruits to the hospital to get them medically examined on 21- 03-1991. It is alleged that appellant ASI Tarsem Singh collected blank medical forms in respect of appellant-Rishi Pal Rana. Accused-appellant Rishi Pal Rana could not pass the medical test only due to defective eye-sight and he was declared medically unfit on 5.4.1991. It is also alleged that on 8.4.1991, ASI Tarsem Singh contacted constable Balwant Singh of OSI Branch and told that Rishi Pal Rana was not medically examined. ASI Tarsem Singh filled in a blank form for medical examination in his own hand in the name of accused-appellant Rishi Pal Rana and also got a despatch number from OSI Branch. At that time, constable complainant Balwant Singh was not aware of malafide intention of ASI Tarsem Singh. His suspicion was aroused when he received a medical register from the hospital within a very short span of time as, normally, medical register used to come back from hospital only after completion of medical examination of candidates after a week. Constable Balwant Singh checked the record and found that accused-appellant Rishi Pal Rana had already been medically examined and found unfit but on 10.4.1991, he, after giving different address, was medically re-examined and declared medically fit. Hence, constable Balwant Singh submitted a written complaint (Ex. PA) to Vijay Pal Singh, DSP Lines, on 20.4.1991 giving information in that regard. Another complaint dated 16.4.1991 was received from Principal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Chandigarh addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh. D.S.P. Headquarters Davinder Singh conducted enquiry and vide the enquiry report dated 14.6.1991 (Ex. PV), he found that appellant-Rishi Pal Rana had got himself medically fit by fraudulent means by sending some other person in the eye-sight test in his place who impersonated as Rishi Pal Singh Rana. He also managed to get his date of birth changed on record. He found that accused-appellant ASI Tarsem Singh helped him in that pursuit. On receipt of the Enquiry Report and legal opinion, a formal FIR was registered as Ex.P15/A on 13.8.1991. During investigation, the police came out with a theory that one accused-appellant Kadam Singh had impersonated accused-appellant Rishi Pal Rana before Dr. M.M.S. Gill on 11.4.1991. Dr. Gill had medically examined him and found his vision to be correct. During the investigation, the accused was arrested. Statement of witnesses were recorded and relevant documents were seized. On 26.8.1991, ASI Anokh Singh produced accused- appellant Kadam Singh before one Shri H.L. Chawla, Executive Magistrate for getting his specimen signatures which accused Kadam Singh refused to give. ASI Anokh Singh also produced ASI Tarsem Singh before Executive Magistrate who gave his specimen signatures and handwriting. The Investigating Officer got the handwriting compared with the admitted handwriting and signatures of ASI Tarsem Singh. On completion of investigation and other formalities, a challan was put up against the accused. After consideration of challan, the learned Trial Magistrate framed charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120- B IPC. The accused-appellant herein pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After the conclusion of the trial, the accused were found guilty and sentenced by learned trial Court. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, while affirming the order of conviction of learned trial Court, has reduced the sentence of the accused petitioners, as discussed herein above.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the UT has placed heavy reliance on the evidence of PW13, Police Constable Balwant Singh, and PW2, Dr. M.M.S. Gill, who medically examined petitioner No. 3. Learned counsel also submitted that the accused petitioners have suffered concurrent findings and though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of circumstances is complete.