Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 400 (GAU)

Ginlala, S/o Sawimanga v. State of Mizoram

2016-05-10

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, J.(Oral) - Heard Mr. K. Laldinliana, learned Amicus Curiae. Also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram. 2. The present appeal has been filed from jail against the Judgment & Order dated 24.7.2015 passed by the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Aizawl in Crl. Trial No. 1837 of 2013 under Section 489(B) IPC, wherein the appellant has been convicted to undergo R.I. for 4 (four) years with a fine of Rs. 3000/- i.d. 6(six) months. 3. The prosecution story of the case in brief is that on 25.5.2013, the Branch Manager In-charge, State Bank of India, Kolasib submitted an FIR dated 25.5.2013 stating that one Khualzangova of Khuangpuilam, Kolasib tried to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) all of which were Rs. 500/- note denomination, using the Pass Book of Kamlalmawia, S/o L. Zathanga, Account No. 2015174465 on 25.5.2013. When the Bank official checked the currency notes, they suspected 100 out of 200 currency notes to be fake. The Officer In-charge, Kolasib, Police Station registered a case No. 30 of 2013 under Section 489 (B)/489(C) IPC. 4. The Police seized the suspected 100 numbers of Rs. 500 Indian currency notes from Khualzangova on 25.5.2013 in SBI, Kolasib. During investigation, the arrested person Khualzangova stated that the present appellant had sent him to deposit the Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) and for which he was to earn Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand)only. The appellant Ginlala was thereafter arrested and he is alleged to have stated that he acquired the fake currency notes from Rintluangi of Rengtekawn, Kolasib near FCI Go-down by buying the same from Tluangi at half the price. 5. Fake currency notes of Rs. 22,500 (500 rupee note) was also seized from the possession of Ginlala at the time of his arrest. On the statement of the appellant, fake currency of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) (500 rupee notes) was again seized from the house of Niangneuvi. Thus, there were 3 (three) seizure memos were made with regard to seizure of fake Indian currency. Charge-sheet was filed and a prima facie case under Section 489 (B) & (C) IPC was found by the I.O. against the appellant. 6. On 22.11.2013 charges under Section 489 (B) & (C) IPC were framed against the present appellant and against Rintluangi, co-accused. Charge-sheet was filed and a prima facie case under Section 489 (B) & (C) IPC was found by the I.O. against the appellant. 6. On 22.11.2013 charges under Section 489 (B) & (C) IPC were framed against the present appellant and against Rintluangi, co-accused. After examination of witnesses and examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 489(B) IPC. 7. The appellant has thereafter filed the present appeal. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that there is no evidence to connect the fake Indian currency notes seized in the State Bank of India (SBI) with the appellant. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that the seizure memo regarding the seizure of fake Indian currency from the appellant in the Police Station shows that there was no civilian witnesses and as the mandatory provision of law had not been followed, the appellant’s conviction and sentence should be set aside. 9. That with regard to the fake Indian currency seized from Niangneuvi’s residence, the seizure witness Lalfamkimi has stated in her cross-examination that she did not see the seized fake currency at the time of seizure. Thus, learned Amicus Curiae submits that there was no ground for the learned Trial Court to have convicted the appellant under Section 489(B) and accordingly the same should be set aside. 10. The Public Prosecutor Mizoram, Mr. A.K. Rokhum submits that the evidence clearly shows that the fake Indian currency seized in the SBI was to be deposited by Khualzangova on the direction of the appellant and for which Khualzangova was to earn Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand)only. The Public Prosecutor also submits that the seizure of fake Indian currency from the appellant at the time of his arrest and also the seizure made in Niangneuvi’s house is admitted by the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in view of the above, there is no infirmity in the impugned Judgment & Order dated 24.7.2015. 11. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of materials on record, I find that in the evidence adduced, there is no connection between the money recovered from Khualzangova and the appellant. Though, Khualzangova was made a prosecution witness, Khualzangova was not examined by the Trial Court and there is no order showing that Khualzangova had been dropped as a prosecution witness. Though, Khualzangova was made a prosecution witness, Khualzangova was not examined by the Trial Court and there is no order showing that Khualzangova had been dropped as a prosecution witness. The closest link to the fake currency seized in the SBI, Kolasib with the appellant is the evidence given by PW No. 3 who states that when she told the appellant that she was going to deposit Rs. 80,000/- (eighty thousand) in the SBI, Kolasib, the appellant sent her Rs. 70,000/- (seventy thousand) in Rs. 500 note denomination for depositing the same. The PW No. 3 also states that she went to the SBI, Kolasib to deposit the said money and that in the meantime, the appellant requested her husband to withdraw some money by using their ATM card. The evidence of the PW No.3 does not mention the name Khualzangova anywhere. As such, if Niangneuvi (PW No. 3) had gone to deposit the money of the appellant in the SBI, Kolasib, I fail to see the link between the appellant and the money seized from Khualzangova. 12. With respect to the recovery of fake Indian currency from Niangneuvi’s residence, the seizure witness Lalfamkimi (PW-No. 7) has stated in her cross-examination as follows :- "it is a fact that I did see the faked currencies being recovered by the police . It is a fact that I did not see the seized fake currency". 13. The evidence of the seizure witness (PW-No. 7) in her cross-examination is contradictory to one another. However the recovery of fake currency made from Niangneuvi’s residence was on the basis of the disclosure given by the appellant. The Apex Court in the case of Sucha Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 14 SCC 552 has held that recoveries of articles pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused clearly point to the guilt of the accused. In the present case, PW No. 3 Niangneuvi has stated in her evidence that the appellant visited their residence on 24.5.2013 at around 6:00 p.m. and he brought Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) in 500 notes denomination and her mother Kimbawihi put the said money under the bed. On the following day, police personnel brought the accused into the residence of PW No.3 and took the money which was kept under the bed. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) in 500 notes denomination and her mother Kimbawihi put the said money under the bed. On the following day, police personnel brought the accused into the residence of PW No.3 and took the money which was kept under the bed. The seizure of fake currency from the house of PW No.3 was done on 25.5.2013. Thus, keeping in mind the short time frame i.e. all the seizures as shown in the seizure memos had been made on 25.5.2013 and due to the fact that it was the appellant who had brought the police to the house of the PW No.3 from where they made the seizure of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) in fake currency, this Court holds that the seizure of the fake currency on the disclosure made by the appellant clearly points to the guilt of the appellant. 14. With respect to the recovery of fake Indian currency from the bag of the appellant at the time of the arrest, the seizure witness are Police personnel. However, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant has not denied that the fake Indian currency of Rs. 22,500/- (500 rupee note) was seized from him. 15. The examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is reproduced below :- "Q.1. It is from the evidence that you had acquired fake currency notes Rs. 50000 + Rs. 22,500 + Rs. 1,00,000/- (five hundred notes) from accused Rintluangi. What do you have to say? Ans. Yes, I received Rs. 50,000/- of Rs. 500/- denomination from Rintluangi. Q.2. It is from the evidence that you sent Pu Khualzangova to deposit fake currency notes Rs. 50,000/- (five hundred notes) at S.B.I. Kolasib Branch on 25.5.2013 and Pu khualzangova deposited the same in the account of Pu Kamlalmawia. What do you say ? Ans. Yes, I sent Khualzangova, to deposit the fake currency which I received from Rintluangi, to the SBI Kolasib Branch in the acct of Mawia, who is the son of my elder brother. Q.3. It is from the evidence that fake currency of Rs. 22,500/- (five hundred notes) was seized from your bag on 25.5.2013. What do you have to say ? Ans. Yes, it is a fact, Rs. 22500 have been seized from me. Q.4. It is from the evidence that on 24.5.2013 you kept fake currency Rs. Q.3. It is from the evidence that fake currency of Rs. 22,500/- (five hundred notes) was seized from your bag on 25.5.2013. What do you have to say ? Ans. Yes, it is a fact, Rs. 22500 have been seized from me. Q.4. It is from the evidence that on 24.5.2013 you kept fake currency Rs. 1 lakh (five hundred notes) at the house of Niangneuvi and the same was seized on 25.5.2013. What do you have to say? Ans. Yes, it is seized Rs. 1,00,000/- from Niangneuvi, the money was belongs to Pa Duma, of (Falam) but I have some share in the money. Q.5. It is from the evidence that the currency notes Pu Khualzangova deposited at S.B.I. Kolasib Branch as per your instruction, notes seized from your bag and which you kept at the house of Niangneuvi of Rengtekawn are fake currency notes. What do you have to say ? Ans. It was seized from the bag which I was holding." 16. In the case of Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma v. State of Tripura, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 747 , the Apex Court has held that the statements made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot solely by themselves be enough for the purpose of conviction. However, statements made under Section Cr.P.C. can be used for corroboration along with other evidence for conviction. 17. In the present case, the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. corroborates the seizure of Rs. 22,500/- (fake currency) from the appellant at the time of his arrest. Also the money recovered from Niangneuvi’s house was on the basis of the statement given by the appellant to the Police. Further the appellant has admitted that sum of the money recovered in Niangneuvi’s house belongs to him. The FSL report with regard to the 3 (three) seizure memos shows that the Indian currency seized by the Police were fake. In view of the fact that the appellant’s statement corroborates the other evidence regarding the seizure of the fake Indian currency which were from his possession and from Niangneuvi’s residence, I am of the opinion that the appellant is guilty of the charge framed under Section 489 (B) IPC. 18. In view of the reasons statement stated, the Judgment & Order dated 24.7.2015 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge-I, Aizawl in Crl. Trial. No. 1837 of 2013 is upheld. 18. In view of the reasons statement stated, the Judgment & Order dated 24.7.2015 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge-I, Aizawl in Crl. Trial. No. 1837 of 2013 is upheld. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 19. In view of the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae, his fee of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) only is to be paid by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority. 20. Send back the LCRs. Appeal dismissed.