Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 350 (RAJ)

Mangla Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2011-02-15

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.02.1994 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 4/1994, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.05.1993 passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 2/1985. By the said judgment the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under:- Name of the Petitioner Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded Mangla Ram 419 I.P.C. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. For each of the offence, rigorous imprisonment for two years alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Bhanwar Singh 419, 420/114, 467/114 & 468/114 I.P.C. For each of the offence, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months alongwith a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 3. The learned trial court did not order that all the sentences shall run concurrently. However, the learned appellate court ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that on 07.09.1983, Shri Karan Singh, Secretary, Bilara Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank, Bilara filed a complaint in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara against the present petitioners and other persons alleging that on 20.03.1982, petitioner Mangla Ram posed himself as Ram Chander and applied for a loan of Rs. 15,000/- for construction of new well. Ram Chander is the father of petitioner Mangla Ram. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC. The police after investigation found that Mangla Ram had drawn Rs. 2700/- on 20.08.1982 and Rs. 3600/- on 18.12.1982 in the name of his father Ram Chander. 15,000/- for construction of new well. Ram Chander is the father of petitioner Mangla Ram. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC. The police after investigation found that Mangla Ram had drawn Rs. 2700/- on 20.08.1982 and Rs. 3600/- on 18.12.1982 in the name of his father Ram Chander. The part attributed to the petitioner No. 1 Mangla Ram is that he posed himself as Ram Chander and put his thumb impression as that of Ram Chander and petitioner No. 2 Bhanwar Singh put his thumb impression as a witness on the mortgage deed executed by Mangla Ram in the name of Ram Chander. 5. The police after investigation filed challan against three persons including the present petitioners. The learned trial court framed charge against petitioner Mangla Ram for the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC and against petitioner Bhanwar Singh for the offences under Section 419, 420/114, 467/114, 468/114 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-petitioners, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of its case. The accused-petitioners in their statements under Section 313 CrPC denied the allegations levelled against them, but they did not examine any witness in their defence and produced Ex.D.1, statement of Khetaram recorded during the investigation. 7. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 27.05.1993 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as narrated above. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. The learned appellate court vide judgment dated 25.02.1994 dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded against the petitioners. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the application for loan was submitted on 20.03.1982 for the amount of Rs. 15000/-, out of which loan was sanctioned for Rs. 9000/- on 07.07.1982. Further an amount Rs. 2700/- was sanctioned to Mangla Ram on 20.08.1982 and an amount of Rs. 3600/- was sanctioned on 18.12.1982, thus, a total amount of loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 6300/-. The bank filed the complaint on 07.09.1983, whereas the loan was repaid by the accused-petitioner Mangla Ram before filing of this complaint. Further an amount Rs. 2700/- was sanctioned to Mangla Ram on 20.08.1982 and an amount of Rs. 3600/- was sanctioned on 18.12.1982, thus, a total amount of loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 6300/-. The bank filed the complaint on 07.09.1983, whereas the loan was repaid by the accused-petitioner Mangla Ram before filing of this complaint. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners contended that Ram Chander, whose thumb impression has been forged by the present petitioner Mangla Ram and who has been identified by Bhanwar singh, has not been examined in the trial court and in the absence of the evidence of Ram Chandra, the offence under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC against petitioner Mangla Ram and offence under Section 419, 420/114, 467/114, 468/114 against petitioner Bhanwar Singh cannot be said to be made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court is illegal, perverse and based on misappreciation of evidence. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the learned trial court affirmed by the learned appellate court. 11. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. P.W.2 Babu Lal, P.W.3 Karan Singh, P.W.9 Bhagwat Singh and P.W.10 Tulsidas, all these witnesses deposed that petitioner Mangla Ram put his thumb impression in front of them misrepresenting himself as Ram Chander and further all these witnesses deposed that Mangla Ram told them that his father Ram Chander is of old age, therefore, he is putting his thumb impression in place of him. The evidence of these witnesses has not been shattered even in the cross-examination because there are no contradictions in their statements and all these witnesses clearly deposed that they know Ram Chander as well as the present petitioner Mangla Ram personally. The learned trial court while convicting both the accused-petitioners relied upon the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses as well as the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution in support of the charges. The learned trial court framed three issues for consideration and decided all the three issues against the accused and in favour of the prosecution. The learned trial court while convicting both the accused-petitioners relied upon the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses as well as the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution in support of the charges. The learned trial court framed three issues for consideration and decided all the three issues against the accused and in favour of the prosecution. While deciding the three issues, the learned trial court appreciated the evidence of P.W.2 Babu Lal, P.W.3 Karan Singh, P.W.9 Bhagwat Singh and P.W.10 Tulsidas and also considered the documentary evidence and on the basis of the statements of these witnesses, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that Mangla Ram while representing himself as Ram Chander filed an application for loan and after sanction of the loan, he received the amount of Rs. 2700/- and Rs. 3600/- as loan and put his thumb impression on receipts of the cheques. The learned trial court further came to the conclusion that accused Bhanwar Singh and Puna Ram helped accused-petitioner Mangla Ram in misrepresenting himself as Ram Chander and dishonestly receiving the loan and in execution of a forged document. The evidence of the aforesaid four witnesses has not been impeached and they cannot be said to be partisan witnesses or interested witnesses, therefore, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or improper. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners is maintained. 12. Coming to the point of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident is of the year 1982 and about 29 years have passed since then. Further accused petitioner Mangla Ram has already paid the whole amount of loan and he remained behind the bars for about two and half months and accused-petitioner Bhanwar Singh also remained behind the bars for some period, therefore, they may be awarded the sentence already undergone by them. While making this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:- (i) 2006 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 574, Shri Ram v. The State of Rajasthan (ii) 1990 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 564, Fatta Ram v. The State of Rajasthan 13. Learned Public Prosecutor does not seriously oppose the contentions and prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 14. While making this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:- (i) 2006 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 574, Shri Ram v. The State of Rajasthan (ii) 1990 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 564, Fatta Ram v. The State of Rajasthan 13. Learned Public Prosecutor does not seriously oppose the contentions and prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 14. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court, the sentence awarded to accused-petitioners Mangla Ram and Bhanwar Singh for the offences mentioned above is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine as imposed by the learned trial court and the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine is maintained. 15. The petitioners shall make the payment of fine within a period of three months from the date of this judgment, failing which the trial court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law.Revision petition partly allowed. *******