Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1984 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Sarwan Kumar

2016-09-16

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted at the instance of the State against the judgment dated 1.12.2005, rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, H.P. in Police Challan No. 54-I/2000, whereby the respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 511 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 23.8.1999 at about 4:30 PM accused Sarwan Kumar produced two General Power of Attorneys before Sub Registrar (Tehsildar), Sadar, Mandi for registration in the presence of Manohar Lal, Advocate. Accused Sunder Lal has appeared as Lekh Ram son of Mahant Ram. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered against the accused. The police arrested the accused and took into possession two General Power of Attorneys. The police also procured specimen signatures of the accused and on completion of the investigation, challan was put up before the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as eight witnesses. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They pleaded innocence and stated that the witnesses have stated falsely. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy Advocate General, for the State has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. R.R. Rahi, Advocate has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 1.12.2005. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the judgment and records of the case carefully. 6. PW-1 Prabodh Saxena, Deputy Commissioner, has stated that in the year 1999, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. On 23.8.1999, Sub-Registrar (Tehsildar) informed him that two General Power of Attorneys were produced before him through Sh. Manohar Lal, Advocate and when he made inquiry from Lekh Ram, he could not satisfy him and ran away from the Tehsil Office. The complaint is Ext. PW-1/A. 7. PW-2 Pratap Singh testified that on 23.8.1999 accused Sarwan Kumar produced two General Power of Attorneys through Sh. Manohar Lal, Advocate for registration in which there were nine executors and in another there were four executors. Sh. The complaint is Ext. PW-1/A. 7. PW-2 Pratap Singh testified that on 23.8.1999 accused Sarwan Kumar produced two General Power of Attorneys through Sh. Manohar Lal, Advocate for registration in which there were nine executors and in another there were four executors. Sh. Manohar Lal, Advocate disclosed that some other person had appeared on behalf of Lekh Ram and when he made inquiry Sunder Lal disclosed that he was Lekh Ram but he could not satisfy him and ran away from the Court Room. The police was informed. Complaint Ext. PW-2/A was registered. The police took into possession two General Power of Attorneys vide seizure memo Ext. PW-2/B. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he told the police that the person who appeared in place of Lekh Ram disclosed his name as Sunder Lal, however, this fact was not recorded in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 8. PW-3 Amin Chand testified that in the year 1999, Sarwan Kumar produced two General Power of Attorneys for registration before Tehsildar and Sh. Manohar Lal, Advocate was also present at that time. When Tehsildar made inquiry from Lekh Ram, he could not reply satisfactorily. Later on, they came to know that Sunder Lal appeared as Lekh Ram and Tehsildar handed over the General Power of Attorneys to the police. 9. PW-4 Bhagi Rath Sharma testified that he typed the General Power of Attorneys. 10. PW-5 HC Sanjay Kumar has taken the General Power of Attorneys into possession. He arrested the accused and procured specimen signatures before the Naib Tehsildar Gopal Chand. These documents were sent to GEQD for opinion. 11. PW-6 Bishan Dass testified that on the request of police, he issued certificate Ext. PW-6/A. 12. PW-7 Gokal Chand, Naib Tehsildar testified that on 10.9.1999, police produced Sunder Lal before him for obtaining specimen hand writing and Sunder Lal gave specimen hand writing Ext. PW-7/A-1 to PW-7/A-8. On 9.9.1999, the police obtained the specimen hand writing of Sarwan Kumar vide Ext. PW-7/B-1 to Ext. PW-7/B-8. 13. PW-8 Dr. Ravinder Sharma, Asstt. Government Examiner of Question Documents has testified that he was posted as Asstt. Government Examiner of Question Documents in the office of GEQD, Chandigarh. The documents were received in the laboratory through Superintendent of Police, Mandi with question documents marked as Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 and Q-4. He proved his opinion vide Ext. PW-1/F. 14. 13. PW-8 Dr. Ravinder Sharma, Asstt. Government Examiner of Question Documents has testified that he was posted as Asstt. Government Examiner of Question Documents in the office of GEQD, Chandigarh. The documents were received in the laboratory through Superintendent of Police, Mandi with question documents marked as Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 and Q-4. He proved his opinion vide Ext. PW-1/F. 14. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that accused Sarwan Kumar has represented himself to be Lekh Ram and attempted to cheat the Sub Registrar (Tehsildar), Sadar, Mandi. According to the prosecution case, this incident has taken place in the presence of Sh. Manohar Lal, Advocate. Sh. Manohar Lal, Advocate was a material witness, however, fact of the matter is that Sh. Manohar Lal, Advocate has not been examined by the prosecution as a witness. 15. PW-2 Pratap Singh testified that he came to know that some other person was appearing on behalf of Lekh Ram when accused appeared in the Court. Surprisingly, PW-3 Amin Chand deposed that he came to know about this fact after 1-2 days of the incident. No identification parade of the accused was conducted by the police. It has also come on record that the accused were not previously known to the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 511 IPC. Thus, there is no occasion for us to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court dated 1.12.2005. 16. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.