Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 853 (RAJ)

Jakir Hussain v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-09

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 14.01.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar (for short "the appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No.134/1997 whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner and acquitted him for offence under Section 467 IPC but while maintaining the conviction for offences under Sections 420, 471 IPC, reduced the sentence to six months simple imprisonment, awarded by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sabulshahar vide his order dated 02.06.1997 in Cr. Case No.308/1991. The sentence awarded to accused-petitioner is as under:- Offence Sentence awarded by the trial court U/s 420 IPC To undergo 2 years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. U/s 467 IPC To undergo 2 years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Offence Sentence awarded by the trial court U/s 471 IPC To undergo 2 years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 2. As per the case set up by the prosecution, on 13.06.1991, the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer filed a complaint at Police Station Lalgarh Jattan stating that the accused-petitioner submitted a form along with mark-sheet in the year 1991. In that mark-sheet serial No.131389 and Roll No.890204 were mentioned. After inquiry it was found that the mark-sheet submitted by the accused-petitioner was forged one. On the said complaint, the Police registered FIR No.71/1991 against the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. After due investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC. 3. After hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, the learned trial court framed charges against accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC, who pleaded no guilty and claimed trial. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and produced documentary evidences viz Exb-P/1 to Exb-P/8 in support of its case. Thereafter the statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, 2 witnesses were examined. 5. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and produced documentary evidences viz Exb-P/1 to Exb-P/8 in support of its case. Thereafter the statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, 2 witnesses were examined. 5. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 02.06.1997 convicted the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar, who by his judgment dated 14.01.1999 acquitted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 467 IPC but convicted by reducing the sentence under Sections 420, 471 IPC to six months simple imprisonment. Hence, this revision petition. 6. Mr. M.K. Garg, appearing for the accused-petitioner submitted that no one has given evidence against the accused-petitioner that he has prepared the forged document and submitted the same in the School and therefore the learned Appellate Court acquitted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 467 IPC but convicted him for offences under Sections 420 & 471 IPC which is against the law and evidence on record. It is further submitted that the accused-petitioner submitted the mark-sheet after getting the same from somebody, who told him that he went to Ajmer, filled up the from of re-totalling/reevaluating and obtained the same from the Board. It is submitted that the petitioner did not prepare any forged documents to cheat the Board and no original forged document was produced before the trial court. It is submitted that there was only photo-state copy which has not been proved and read against the accused-petitioner. It is further submitted that in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there are material contradictions, improvements and omissions and therefore no conviction can be passed against the accused-petitioner on such type of evidence which is contrary to each other. The incident in present case relates to the year 1991 and at that time the accused-petitioner was 19 years of age. It is further submitted that the courts below have not given the benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. to the accused-petitioner which is essential in this case. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for acquittal of the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offences. It is further submitted that the courts below have not given the benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. to the accused-petitioner which is essential in this case. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for acquittal of the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offences. In the alternative, it has been submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned PP has submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the findings of the appellate court below as also the trial court, nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 8. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgments passed by both the courts below. 9. In view of the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellate court below has appreciated the evidence which came up before it in proper and correct perspective and there is no reason to interfere with the said findings of the appellate court below and set aside the conviction recorded by the learned Courts below. Accordingly The conviction of the accused-petitioner reduced by the appellate court below is confirmed and upheld. 10. However, taking into account the fact that the incident is of the year 1991 and the petitioner had remained in custody for more than two months, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the appellate court below is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-petitioner. 11. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 471 IPC, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine of Rs.500/- imposed by the learned courts below shall stand increased to Rs. 3,000/- upon same condition imposed by the learned trial court in case of default of payment of fine. The said amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within a period of 90 days. *******