STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision petition filed under Sec. 397 Cr.PC read with Sec. 401 Cr.PC, is directed against the judgment dated 11.8.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 3-N/4 of 2007 titled 'Amar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.6.2007, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, HP, in Criminal Case No. 1/2 of 2003 titled "State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Amar Singh," whereby petitioner (herein after referred to as the "accused" for the sake of brevity) has been convicted and sentenced to undergo as follows:-

(2.) Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that on 29.1.2002, on the basis of complaint received from Medical Superintendent, Zonal Hospital, Nahan, FIR Ext.PW-11/B was registered with the Police Station Nahan, HP, wherein, it was complained that accused has committed forgery of disability certificate. Aforesaid factum came to the notice of authorities when the accused appeared before the medical board comprising Dr. Saneha Gupta (PW-3), M.S. Regional Hospital Nahan, Dr. M.L. Gupta and Dr. Oberoy for renewal of certificate on 29.1.2002, where he produced the disability certificate Ext.PW-1/B, wherein disability was mentioned to the extent of 83%. Since on the certificate produced by the accused for renewal had overwriting, medical board got suspicious and called for the records maintained by the Hospital. After inspection of the record, it transpired that disability was mentioned 03% on the certificate, which was originally issued to the accused on 28.5.1998. After perusing the record of the hospital, Ex.PW1/B disability certificate, was found forged and, as such, matter was reported to the police station, Rajgarh. Police after receiving the aforesaid complaint, lodged the FIR i.e. Ext.11/B. During investigation, police procured the duplicate certificate in which the disability was mentioned to be 03% vide memo Ext.PW1/C from Tarsem Kumar (PW1) in the presence of Arun Sharma (PW2)along with original disability certificate and one identity card issued in the name of the accused in which disability was mentioned 83%, which are Ext.PW5/A, Ext.PW1/A and Ext.PW1/B. The abstract of register showing issuance of identity card was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext.PW4/A. During investigation, it also revealed that accused also procured concessional pass on the basis of forged disability certificate from the HRTC department. Police after taking documents in custody sent the same to FSL, Junga, and report Ext.PW11/A was obtained wherein documents Ext. P1 to P21 were sought to be examined. Investigation of the present case was conducted by PW-12 ASI Mohan Singh. On 8.3.2002, abstract of register regarding issuance of identify card was also obtained by the police from Shri Kulbhushan (PW-5) the then Senior Assistant, HRTC, Nahan in the presence of Ranvir-PW4. Specimen signatures of accused were also obtained on 18.3.2002. Application of one Suresh Kumar was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW6/A from Surender Kumar (PW6) the then BMO, Sarahan, in the presence of Sanjeev Arora (PW7). Accordingly, specimen signatures of the accused and admitted writings of Suresh Kumar were sent to FSL Junga for the purpose of comparison along with disputed writings on the disability certificate and opinion of Dr. Minakshi Mahajan (PW14) Assistant Director, FSL Junga, was obtained vide Ext.PW11A, wherein she concluded that blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked as S-13 to S-16 and red enclosed signatures stamped and marked as Q-1 to Q-6 are written by one and the same person but it is not possible to express any opinion on altered questioned item No. Q-8 to Q-13. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by ASI Mohan Singh (PW12), Inspector Laxman Dass (PW11) and SI Dhan Singh (PW8) as per their version under Sec. 161 Cr.PC.

(3.) After conclusion of the investigation, police filed challan under Sec. 173 Cr.PC before the competent court of law against the accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Rajgarh, after satisfying itself that the prima facie case exists against the accused, framed charges against him. However, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 14 witnesses and statement of the accused was also recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied the case of the prosecution in to to and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the case. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence.