STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra acquitting the accused/respondents for offences punishable under Sections 170, 420, 120 -B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 18.9.2010 ASI Tara Chand of Police Station Dehra was on patrolling duty near HRTC Workshop at Dehra where Tara Chand, Complainant informed him that he was posted as Inspector in Flying Squad at Dharamshala and Avtar Singh (PW1) and Amarnath (PW6) also posted as Inspectors in the same wing of the HRTC. On the previous day when he was touring in his official vehicle No. HIK -672 at around 10 a.m. he reached Jawalamukhi in connection with traffic checking duty, when Hari Chand (PW12), Inspector HRTC also joined the flying squad. They received information that one person was impersonating himself as Inspector and had proceeded to Dehara in bus No. HP -38 -2412. On inquiry made from bus conductor Sunder Lal about the fact as to whether there was some person impersonating himself as Inspector, he pointed towards accused/respondent Hari Chand. They accosted him and he disclosed his name as Om Prakash son of Shri Dayalu Ram, resident of Village Ahaju but there was no identity with him. They then took him to Shri S.R. Dogra, Regional Manager, Dehra and on checking the papers which he was carrying, they found that his name was Hari Chand and not Om Prakash. Regional Manager questioned this person and he confessed before him that he regularly holds out that he is an Inspector and checks buses. Thereupon the Regional Manager sent the complainant to the police to lodge a report against the accused and when he was proceeding to the police station, he met ASI Tara Chand to whom he narrated the entire episode, which was made the basis for registering the FIR No. 54/90.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court formulated five points for adjudication. The first four points recorded are:(a) as to whether the accused Hari Chand had impersonated himself as Inspector and pursuant to that had performed duties in such capacity (b) whether the prosecution had proved that he had hatched criminal conspiracy with accused Milkhi Ram for preparing re -appointment order as conductor (c) whether the prosecution has proved on record that Ex. PW5/A letter dated 4.8.1990 prepared by accused Hari Chand purporting to be the forged appointment letter of Hari Chand, and Ex. P16 appointment letter of Chottu Ram and Matriculation certificate, Ex.P15 of Guri Singh were forged and fabricated and (d) whether the prosecution has proved that accused/respondent Hari Chand entered into conspiracy for the purpose of preparing these forged documents?