SHEESH PAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of all the three appeals having arisen from the judgment dated 21.8.2012, passed by learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, in Corruption case No. 7-S/7 of 2009. Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment has convicted the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") and also sentenced them for the commission of the offence they allegedly committed.

(2.) Accused-Appellant Sheesh Pal in this appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 371 of 2012) and accused-appellant Bal Mukand in connected Cr. Appeal No. 383 of 2012 have been tried for the commission of the offence allegedly committed by them under Sections 120-B, 409/420, 409, 467, 468, 471 Penal Code and under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, being working as Jr. Engineer and Block Development Officer (BDO), Rohru, respectively, hence public servants. Their co-accused Bir Singh, appellant in connected Cr. Appeal No. 395 of 2012, being Contractor has been tried for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 Penal Code and under Sec. 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused Bir Singh was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 Penal Code. Accused Appellant Sheesh Pal has been acquitted of the charge under Sec. 409 Penal Code whereas acused-appellant Bal Mukand under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 Penal Code. Accused Bir Singh was also acquitted under Sections 467, 468 and 471 Penal Code. They all were sentenced as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved by the findings of their conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial Court, accused-appellant Sheesh Pal has assailed the same having been based on surmises and conjectures and without application of mind. The evidence available on record is stated to be not appreciated in its right perspective and the findings to the contrary holding him as guilty have been recorded mechanically without application of mind. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against him, however, the findings to the contrary are the result of misreading, mis-appreciation and misconstruction of the evidence available on record. The essential ingredients of the offence he allegedly committed were not at all proved and as such no findings of conviction could have been recorded. He, however, has been convicted without there being any legal evidence available on record and on the basis of the findings recorded in a slip shod and perfunctory manner. The findings that he cheated the Government by Rs. 8,000.00 or used forged documents as genuine are not supported by any cogent and reliable evidence. The factum of this amount entrusted to him vide receipt Ext. PW-4/E is not at all appreciated and to the contrary undue weightage has been given to the answers in his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. The documentary evidence Ext. PW-4/E, PW-4/H and A-13 being not proved legally could have not been used against him.