Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 489 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anupam

2025-03-25

SUSHIL KUKREJA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Sushil Kukreja, J.) Since all these appeals are the offshoots of impugned judgment dated 14.08.2014, hence the same are taken up together for disposal. 2. The instant appeals have been filed by the appellant/State laying challenge to judgments, dated 14.08.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., whereby the appeal of the accused persons, i.e., Karnail Singh and Anupam were allowed. Vide impugned judgment dated 14.08.2014, accused Karnail Singh was acquitted under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), accused Anupam was also acquitted under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and the appeal preferred by the State against judgment dated 27.08.2011, for enhancement of sentence was dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that one Shri Chain Singh (complainant) made a complaint, dated 26.02.2000, to Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, which was investigated by Vigilance Department, Dharamshala and after receipt of the inquiry report, a case FIR was registered against Karnail Singh and Anupam (the accused persons). As per the story of the prosecution, on 12.10.1999 at place Patta Jatain, accused in connivance with co-accused forged application for procuring 10 th standard certificate from H.P. Board of School Education. Accused Karnail Singh personated himself as one Vijay Kumar for procuring a false certificate from the board and in that process co-accused Anupam helped him. During the course of the investigation, police procured receipt, extract of dispatch register and extract of gazette qua the result of matriculation examination for the Session March, 1993. The Investigating Officer took into possession application form and receipt and procured copies of extract of admission and withdrawal register. Matriculation certificate was also taken into possession by the police and copy of pariwar register was also taken into possession. Police recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and after completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 27.08.2011 convicted both the accused persons and vide order dated 05.09.2011 sentenced them as under: Accused Karnail Singh: Sr. No. Convicted under Section Sentence of imprisonment Amount of Fine 1. 419 IPC -- Rs.1000/- 2. 420 IPC Simple imprisonment for six months Rs.1000/- 3. 465 IPC -- Rs.1000/- 4. 467 IPC Simple imprisonment for six months Rs.1000/- 5. No. Convicted under Section Sentence of imprisonment Amount of Fine 1. 419 IPC -- Rs.1000/- 2. 420 IPC Simple imprisonment for six months Rs.1000/- 3. 465 IPC -- Rs.1000/- 4. 467 IPC Simple imprisonment for six months Rs.1000/- 5. 468 IPC Simple imprisonment for six months Rs.1000/- 6. 471 IPC Simple imprisonment for three months Rs.1000/- 7. 120-B IPC Simple imprisonment for three months Rs.1000/- In default of payment of fine amount, accused Karnail Singh was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused Anupam: Sr. No. Convicted under Section Sentence of imprisonment Amount of Fine 1. 465 IPC -- Rs.1000/- 2. 467 IPC Simple imprisonment for six months Rs.1000/- 3. 468 IPC Simple imprisonment for six months Rs.1000/- 4. 471 IPC Simple imprisonment for three months Rs.1000/- 5. 120-B Simple imprisonment for three months Rs.1000/- In default of payment of fine amount, accused Anupam was also ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 5. In order to prove its case, during trial, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses and after the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they stated that they are were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. However, they did not examine any witness in their defence. 6. Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction, dated 27.08.2011, and order of sentence, dated 05.09.2011, both the accused persons/convicts as well as the State preferred separate appeals before the learned First Appellate Court and vide judgments dated 14.08.2014, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the State and allowed the appeals preferred by the accused persons. Both the accused persons were acquitted by the learned First Appellate Court, hence the instant appeals preferred by the State against impugned judgments dated 14.08.2014. 7. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General contended that learned First Appellate Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a slip-shod and perfunctory manner. The learned First Appellate Court has discarded the consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the well reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court. 7. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General contended that learned First Appellate Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a slip-shod and perfunctory manner. The learned First Appellate Court has discarded the consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the well reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court. He further contended that the learned First Appellate Court has gravely erred in disbelieving the versions of the prosecution witnesses on minor discrepancies and contradictions which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, as such, the impugned judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, is liable to be set aside and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court may be upheld. 8. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents/ accused persons contended that the learned First Appellate Court passed the judgment after proper appreciation of both facts and law. They further contended that the learned First Appellate Court has correctly appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and the impugned judgment does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, they submitted that the instant appeals, which are devoid of merits, be dismissed. 9. At the very outset, it needs to be observed that the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal as an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. In Dhanapal vs. State By Public Prosecutor, Madras, (2009) 10 SCC 401 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the presumption of innocence of the accused is strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “25. The same principle has been followed in Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807 (at pp. 809-10 para 5), wherein the Court said: “5. …It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well-established rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Which had the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence. It is also well settled that the court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal." 10. In N. Vijaykumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 687, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him and secondly, the presumption of his innocence is further strengthened by the judgment of his acquittal passed by the trial Court. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “20. ……... By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:- (1) to (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.” 11. In Jafarudheen & Ors. Vs. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.” 11. In Jafarudheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “ 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 12. We have heard learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State as well as learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons and also carefully examined the entire records. 13. The story of the prosecution is that accused Karnail Singh filed application form, Ex. PW-12/A, by personating himself as Vijay Singh for obtaining a duplicate 10 th standard certificate from H.P. Board of School Education and in this process had committed the offence of cheating. 14. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined Vijay Kumar as PW-10, who deposed that he had passed matriculation examination from Ghirth Arya Senior Secondary School, Patta Jatain, in the year 1993 with Roll Number 225665 and he had applied for duplicate certificate in the year 2002/2003. He did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. During his cross-examination, he deposed that neither did he apply for duplicate certificate in the year 1999 nor did application, Ex. PW-12/A, bears his handwriting/signatures/ photograph nor the same was filed by him. Although, PW-10 stated that application, Ex. He did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. During his cross-examination, he deposed that neither did he apply for duplicate certificate in the year 1999 nor did application, Ex. PW-12/A, bears his handwriting/signatures/ photograph nor the same was filed by him. Although, PW-10 stated that application, Ex. PW-12/A, was neither filed by him nor it bears his handwriting/signatures, but there is also no evidence on record to suggest that appellant Karnail Singh had filed application, Ex. PW-12/A. 15. It is not in dispute that certificate, Ex.PW-5/G, had been dispatched on the address of Shri Vijay Singh son of Shri Gorkh Singh, resident of village Saroli, Post Office Takoli, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, but there is no evidence on record that the aforesaid certificate had either been received or misused by accused Karnail Singh. There is no evidence on record to show that accused Karnail Singh had taken any benefit from the aforesaid certificate. 16. The learned Trial Court had convicted the accused persons only on the ground that they had refused to give their specimen signatures. However, only on the refusal to give specimen handwriting and signatures by the accused, the guilt against them cannot be inferred. Moreover, the Investigating Agency had failed to associate the complainant during the course of the investigation and the reliance has only been placed upon the hearsay evidence. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have not stated anything against the accused persons and there is no direct evidence to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence. 17. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The view taken by the trial Court while convicting the accused persons is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the view taken by the learned First Appellate Court while acquitting the accused persons is a reasonable view based on the evidence on the record and the same cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record. Hence, no interference in the impugned judgments dated 14.08.2014, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in RBT Criminal Appeals No. 65-J/X/2011/13, 18-J/X/13-2011 and 67-J/X/13-2012, is required as the same are the result of proper appreciation of evidence and law. Hence, no interference in the impugned judgments dated 14.08.2014, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in RBT Criminal Appeals No. 65-J/X/2011/13, 18-J/X/13-2011 and 67-J/X/13-2012, is required as the same are the result of proper appreciation of evidence and law. All the three appeals, which are devoid of merits, deserve dismissal and are accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.