PADAM PRASHAD UPADHYAYA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case Padam-prasad was tried at the High Court Sessions by my learned brother, Jack, J., and a common Jury on charges laid under Secs.193 and 471, I.P.C., together with Sujauddin Ahmed and Kanhyalal. He was convicted on the unanimous verdict of the jury of abetment of the offence of fabricating false evidence and also on the substantive charge of dishonestly using as genuine a forged document knowing the same to be forged. Kanhyalal was acquitted of both charges and Sujauddin Ahmed was convicted of abetment of the offence of fabricating false evidence and also of abetment of. the offence of dishonestly using as genuine a forged document knowing the same to be forged.

(2.) On 19 March 1927, a Nepali girl called Raj Kumari presented a petition of complaint to the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate charging Padam Prasad with divers offences and in particular with the offence of having sold her to one Hiralal Agarwala for immoral purposes. She alleged that she was of the age of about 14 years and asked that process issue against the accused under Section 372, I.P.C., that is for the offence of selling a minor girl for immoral purposes. The Magistrate commenced the trial of the accused on 14 April 1927. On 17th May 1927, he framed charges against the accused including a charge under Section 372. On 6 August 1927 he gave judgment acquitting the accused.

(3.) The case for the prosecution at the High Court Sessions was that Padam-Prasad in the course of the trial before the Magistrate had filed and made use of a document purporting to be a certified copy of an extract from the daily register of births of the year 1908 kept in thana Dasaswamedh, Benares with a view to show that the girl Raj Kumari was over the age of 18 years at the time at which it was alleged that she had been sold; and that at the time when the document was filed and used as aforesaid it had been altered in four places, in two places 1909 had been altered to 1908 and in two places the name "Biber" had been inserted in front of the names "Jung Bahadur," the effect of the forgery being that whereas the genuine entry recorded the birth as on 19 June 1909 and the father as being Jung Bahadur, the document as forged showed the date of birth as 19 June 1908 and the father as Baber Jung Bahadur. It was proved at the trial that application had been made for the certificate on 26 April 1927 by Sujauddin who was acting as Padam Prasad's tadbirkar in the case before the Magistrate. The certificate is in Urdu script and the alterations made in it have been so made as not to be noticeable, though a careful examination discloses that the document has been tampered with. It is proved, however, that Padam Prasad does not know Urdu script. Upon the evidence there can be no doubt that Sujauddin obtained the certificate in order that it might be altered and used as part of the defence of Padam Prasad. The sole question so far as Padam Prasad is concerned was the question whether or not Padam Prasad had been proved to have known that the document had been altered at the time when he used it for the purpose of his defence before the Magistrate. Upon that question the evidence before the jury was almost entirely circumstantial. The sole purpose of the forgery was to defeat the charge under Section 372 and the jury had to consider whether in all the circumstances of the case it was a safe and reasonable inference to hold that the document had not been forged in the interest of Padam Prasad without Padam Prasad being well aware of what was being done in his interest