Madhya Pradesh High Court
Damodar Prasad Rajoria & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. Th: C.I.D., Bhopal on 15 February, 2018
1 Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996
[Damodar Prasad Rajoria and others Vs. State of M.P. ]
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH:
HON. SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996
.........Appellants: Damodar Prasad Rajoria and
others
Versus
.........Respondent: State of M.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Shashank Shekhar, Counsel for appellant no.1.
Shri Amit Verma, Counsel for appellants no. 2 and 3.
Shri Vivek Lakhera, Counsel for the respondent/CID.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 15/02/2018
Date of Judgment : 15/02/2018
Whether approved for reporting :
Law laid down:
Significant paragraphs:
JUDGMENT
(15/02/2018) Per Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellants challenging the correctness and proprietary of Judgment and sentence dated 12-10-1996 passed by Special Judge, Bhopal in Special Sessions Trial No.8/1992, by which the appellant no.1 has been convicted under Section 420/34 and 163/34 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 1 ½ years and simple imprisonment of 6 months respectively and appellants no.2 and 3 have been convicted under 2 Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996 [Damodar Prasad Rajoria and others Vs. State of M.P. ] Sections 420 and 163 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of Rs.4,000/- with default imprisonment and simple imprisonment of 6 months respectively.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that in the year 1984, the appellant no.1-Damodar Prasad Rajoria was posted in the office of Superintendent of Police Morena and was the resident of village Mudiakheda, whereas Satish Kumar, Shivnarayan and Ram Pal Singh Tomar were also the resident of village Mudiakheda, Distt. Morena. The appellant M.L. Verma was posted as Platoon Commander, 23 rd Battalion and was posted as Security Guard of the Chief Minister. The appellant Janki Prasad is the brother-in-law of the appellant M.L. Verma. The appellant no.1-Damodar Prasad had introduced Satish Chand Dandotiya, Rampal Singh Tomar and Shivnarayan and many other others with the appellant-M.L.Verma and appellant-Janaki Prasad and had assured that as the appellant M.L. Verma is posted as Security Guard of the Chief Minister, therefore, he is very close to the Chief Minister and is competent to get them employed. If they fulfill the demand of M.L. Verma, then they can get an employment. Accordingly, Satish Chand Dandotiya gave Rs. 12,000/-, Rampal Singh gave Rs.6,000/- and Shivnarayan gave Rs.3,500/- to M.L. Verma and Janki Prasad. Accordingly, M.L. Verma got a note-sheet prepared from the office of the Chief Minister and sent it to the Police Headquarter, however, was not able to get the complainants appointed. On the complaint of the complainants, the C.I.D. registered the offence and after completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet for offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. and under Section 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
The Trial Court by order dated 17-8-1993 framed the charges under Sections 420 and 163 of I.P.C.
3 Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996 [Damodar Prasad Rajoria and others Vs. State of M.P. ] The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty. The Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Satish (P.W.1), Ramswaroop (P.W.2), Lakhminder Singh (P.W.3), Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W.4), Narayan Prasad Mishra (P.W.5), Dinesh Kumar Shivhare (P.W.6), N.K. Vijayvargiya (P.W.7), Suresh Kumar (P.W.8), Rampal Singh (P.W.9), Shivnarayan (P.W.10), Ramsewak (P.W.11), Damodar Sharma (P.W.12), Ramshanker Sharma (P.W.13), Mahesh Chandra Dubey (P.W.14), R.K.S. Tomar (P.W.15), Vinod Ashtputre (P.W.16), Vijay Gavade (P.W.17), Sudhakar Phadanis (P.W.18), Ravindra Nath Shrivastava (P.W.19), Raghuraj Singh (P.W.20), R.K. Soni (P.W.21), and M.N. Pandey (P.W.22). The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.
The Trial Court after hearing both the parties, convicted the appellant no.1 for offence under Sections 420/34 and 163/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 1½ years and simple imprisonment of 6 months respectively, whereas the appellants no.2 and 3 have been convicted under Sections 420 and 163 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of Rs.4000/- with default imprisonment and simple imprisonment of 6 months respectively.
Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellants no. 2 and 3 that according to the prosecution case, the witnesses/complainants had tried to obtain service by adopting an illegal way, therefore, they are the accomplice, therefore, their evidence should not be accepted without corroboration. It is further submitted that the offence is alleged to have been committed in the year 1984 and, therefore, the jail sentence may be reduced and they may be punished with fine only. It was submitted by the Counsel for the appellant no.1 that the appellant 4 Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996 [Damodar Prasad Rajoria and others Vs. State of M.P. ] no.1 is an innocent person and there is no evidence on record to show that he ever introduced the complainants with the accused M.L. Verma and Janki Prasad or induced them to give money to the appellants no.2 and 3 for securing job in the police department.
Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Satish (P.W.1) has stated that the appellant No.1 Damodar is the resident of his village and he knows the appellants No.2 and 3 because of Damodar, appellant no.1. In the year 1983, he had gone to Bhopal to give interview for the post of Wireless Operator. At that time, the appellant Damodar was working in M.T. Workshop, Bhopal. He had stayed with Damodar. The quarter of M.L. Verma was adjoining to the quarter of Damodar. The appellant M.L. Verma had promised him that he would get him appointed and had also told that he should keep money ready and he would inform him as soon as there would be possibility of the appointment. He informed his father and told that M.L. Verma has assured him job and has also told him to make arrangement of money and he had also informed that he is posted as Security Guard in the security of the Chief Minister. His father made an arrangement of Rs.30,000 after selling 2½ bigha of his land. Thereafter, the appellant M.L. Verma and Janki Prasad came to his village Mudiakheda, Distt. Morena and demanded Rs.5000/- and assured that he would get him appointed on the post of Clerk in the Police Department and asked that the remaining amount would be paid at a later stage. Thereafter, his father had given an amount of Rs.5000/- to M.L. Verma and thereafter, both the accused persons went back. About 2-3 months thereafter the appellant Janki Prasad again came to his house and informed that 5 Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996 [Damodar Prasad Rajoria and others Vs. State of M.P. ] the appellant M.L. Verma has asked him to come to Bhopal along with an amount of Rs.7,000/-. Accordingly, he went to Bhopal along with Janki Prasad and gave an amount of Rs.7,000/- to M.L. Verma, who assured that the appointment order shall be issued within a period of 2-4 days and, therefore, he should stay in Bhopal itself. After 2-3 days, when he enquired about his service, then it was informed by M.L. Verma that a note-sheet from the office of the Chief Minister has been issued for appointment on the post of L.D.C. At that time Shri Arjun Singh was the Chief Minister. About 3-4 months thereafter, the appellant M.L. Verma handed over a recommendation order, Ex. P.11, written by Inspector General of Police (Administration), Police Headquarters, which was addressed to the S.P., Raipur for appointment on the post of L.D.C. and accordingly, he went to Raipur to submit his joining and met with Superintendent of Police Shri Das. Shri Das informed that there is no vacancy. Thereafter, he informed the appellant M.L. Verma that the Superintendent of Police has refused him to give joining and accordingly he came back to Bhopal. Thereafter, he demanded his money back from the appellant M.L. Verma, but he started threatening him. It was further stated by the witness that before returning back to his village, he met with Dinesh who was working in a liquor shop at Bhopal and informed him about the activities of M.L. Verma and came back to his village. Dinesh had some talks with M.L. Verma and accordingly, he informed him by sending two inland letters, which are Ex. P.1 and P.2. Later on, he informed his cousin brother Damodar Sharma about the incident. One C.S.P., who was the friend of Damodar Sharma, was posted at Bhopal and accordingly he gave a letter for said C.S.P. This witness again came to Bhopal and demanded his money back from the appellant M.L. Verma. The appellant Verma requested him not to give letter to the C.S.P. and assured that he would sent a letter to him and 6 Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996 [Damodar Prasad Rajoria and others Vs. State of M.P. ] thereafter, he can collect his money back. Thereafter, the appellant Verma sent a letter to the witness. This witness came to Bhopal where an amount of Rs.5000/- was returned by the appellant M.L. Verma and the remaining amount of Rs.7000/- was not returned. Thereafter, he met with the C.S.P., who sent him to Police Station T.T. Nagar, Bhopal, where he made a written complaint. On 22-1-1986, the appellant M.L. Verma had given a letter, which is Ex. P.4, in which it was mentioned that he would return the money by 1986 along with interest otherwise, he would get his work done. Another letter Ex. P.5 was given by M.L. Verma in which it was mentioned that an amount of Rs.3000/- shall be returned by 25-3-1986 and the remaining amount of Rs.4,500/- shall be returned by 1-4-1986. However, the remaining amount has not been returned. When he did not get the job, then he made a written complaint to the Chief Minister Ex. P.6. The appellant Janki Prasad is the brother-in-law of the appellant M.L. Verma and had come to his village along with the appellant M.L. Verma and had subsequently taken him to Bhopal. Janki Prasad Verma had also written a letter to him which is Ex. P.7. Another letter Ex. P.8 was also sent by Janki Prasad. Another letter Ex P.9 which was in handwriting of M.L. Verma was also given by the appellant Janki Prasad and he had informed the appellant Damodar about this letter. The seizure memo Ex. P.10 was prepared. The recommendation letter, which was given by the appellant M.L. Verma is Ex. P.11, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P.10. This witness was cross examined. This witness could not specify the dates on which he had met with the accused persons at Bhopal. It was accepted by him that the appellant Damodar is the resident of the same village and this witness had stayed in the house of the appellant Damodar, however, he admitted that he had not disclosed to the appellant Damodar about his talks and transactions with other accused persons. His 7 Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996 [Damodar Prasad Rajoria and others Vs. State of M.P. ] father had given money to M.L. Verma in his presence and the order and letters were given by M.L. Verma. Thus, it is clear that no effective cross examination of this witness was done and he was not asked anything about the allegations made by him in his examination-in-chief.
Ramswaroop (P.W.2) is the father of Satish (P.W.1). He has stated that the appellant Damodar is the resident of his village however, he does not know about the fact that whether the other accused persons are related to the appellant Damodar or not? He had given an amount of Rs.7000/- to his son for procuring job. His son Satish had stayed at Bhopal for a period of 3 months with the accused persons. Janki on the instructions of appellant M.L. Verma, had demanded Rs.5000/- for procuring job for his son Satish and had given an amount of Rs.5000/- to Janaki. His son has not got the job so far. In cross examination, this witness has stated that he had not given the money directly to M.L. Verma, but he had given the money to his son, who had given the said amount to M.L. Verma. No effective cross examination of this witness was done.
Dinesh (P.W.6) had stated that the appellant M.L. Verma had taken money from Satish for getting him appointed. The appellant M.L. Verma used to tell Satish that he would get the job. However, this witness specifically stated that the appellant Damodar Rajoria is not known to him and, therefore, this witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined, but even in the cross-examination, he did not say anything against the appellant Damodar.
Suresh Kumar (P.W.8), Rampal Singh (P.W.9), Shivnarayan (P.W.10), and Ramsewak (P.W.11) have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case.
Damodar Sharma (P.W.12) has stated that he was informed by Satish that he has got a job at Raipur and when he enquired as 8 Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996 [Damodar Prasad Rajoria and others Vs. State of M.P. ] to how he has got the job because he has not passed Higher Secondary Examination, then he was told by Satish that he has got the job by giving money to M.L. Verma. Later on, he was informed that he has been removed from the service. Thus, this witness is a hearsay witness.
Thus, the entire case is based on the testimony of Satish (P.W.1) and the evidence of Ramswaroop (P.W.2), Dinesh (P.W.4) and Damodar Sharma (P.W. 12) corroborates the evidence of Satish (P.W.1).
From the evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that M.L. Verma and Janki Prasad had demanded money. Money was paid to M.L. Verma. M.L. Verma and Janki Prasad had written certain letters, viz. Ex. P.4, P.5 and P.7 to P.9, to the complainant Satish (P.W.1). A recommendation order, Ex. P.11 was also given by M.L. Verma.
R.K. Soni (P.W.21) is the investigating officer, who had seized the note-sheet sent from the office of Chief Minster, Ex.P.23 to P.28, copy of the outward register, Ex. P.29, Covers Dak Book, Ex. P.30, Note-sheet prepared by Police Headquarter, Ex.P.31 vide seizure memo Ex. P.14. The disputed documents, i.e. note sheets, Ex. P.23 to P.28, as well as the letters written by the appellants Ex. P.1, P.2, P.4, P.5 and P.7 to P.9 were sent to the handwriting expert. The specimen signatures of the Chief Minister, Arjun Singh were obtained and were sent to the handwriting expert. Apart from that, the specimen handwriting of appellant Damodar Prasad, Ex. P.43 to 45, was taken and his letters Ex. P.46 to 51 were sent to the handwriting expert. Similarly, the specimen handwriting of Janki Prasad, Ex. P.53 to 63, were obtained. The applications, Ex. P. 64 to 69, were obtained and all the documents were sent to the handwriting expert by memo Ex.P. 69 to 72.
Handwriting expert M.N. Pandey (P.W.22) has stated that he 9 Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996 [Damodar Prasad Rajoria and others Vs. State of M.P. ] had examined the disputed documents and had opined that the same person had signed on the documents marked as S-61 to 66 who had signed Q.10. Similarly, the person who had written the documents A-1 to A-12 had written Q.11. Similarly, the handwriting on B-1 to B-30 is in the same handwriting and signature of the person who had written Q-12 to Q-19. Thus, from the report of the handwriting expert, it is clear that the letters Ex. P.4, P.5 and P.9 which were addressed to the complainant Satish (P.W.1) were in the handwriting of the appellant M.L. Verma. Similarly, the letters Ex.P.7 and P.8 were found to be in the handwriting of the appellant Janki Prasad.
From the report of the handwriting expert, it also appears that the signatures of the then Chief Minister were forged and the same were in the handwriting of the appellant Damodar Prasad.
Thus, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the witnesses have stated that M.L. Verma and Janki Prasad had assured the complainant Satish (P.W.1) that he would get an appointment and had taken an amount of Rs.5000/- and Rs.7000/- from the complainant Satish. Letters Ex. P.4, P.5, P.9 were in the handwriting of the appellant M.L. Verma, whereas the letter Ex. P.7 and P.8 were in the handwriting of the appellant Janki Prasad. In these letters, the accused have admitted that they would return the amount. The explanation given by the appellants in this regard cannot be said to be a plausible explanation. Satish (P.W.1), Ramswaroop (P.W.2), Dinesh (P.W.4) and Damodar Sharma (P.W.12) have stated in support of the prosecution case. Thus, it is held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant M.L. Verma and Janki Prasad had assured Satish (P.W.1) that he can get appointment in the police department, but would be required to pay the amount. Accordingly, the appellant M.L. Verma and Janki Prasad took money from Satish (P.W.1) and 10 Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996 [Damodar Prasad Rajoria and others Vs. State of M.P. ] recommendation letter for appointment on the post of L.D.C. Ex.P.11, was also obtained on the strength of the forged signatures of the Chief Minister. It is also established by the evidence of Handwriting Expert M.N. Pandey (P.W.22) that the forged signatures of the Chief Minister on the note sheet were not in the handwriting of the Chief Minister. Now the question for consideration is that whether the forged signatures of the Chief Minister, on the note sheet Ex. P.34 are in the handwriting of the appellate Damodar or not?
The prosecution has obtained the specimen signatures of the then Chief Minister which are marked as S.56 to S.60. The specimen handwriting of the appellant Damodar was obtained and his admitted handwriting is Ex. P.43 to P.45 and was marked as S.61 to S.66. However, surprisingly, the appellant Damodar Prasad was not asked to make the signatures of the then Chief Minister for its comparison with the disputed signatures of the Chief Minister on the note sheet Ex. P.34. The note sheet Ex. P.34 is not in the handwriting, but it is a typed note sheet with the signature of the then Chief Minister. If the prosecution really wanted to compare the signatures of the then Chief Minister in order to ascertain the authorship of the said signatures, then it should have asked the appellant Damodar Prasad to make the signatures of the then Chief Minister and then should have got compared with the disputed signatures. The disputed signatures on the note sheet Ex. P. 34 should not have been compared with the specimen hand writing of the appellant Damodar Prasad. Thus, in view of the above mentioned lapse on the part of the prosecution, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the disputed signatures of the then Chief Minister were in the handwriting of the appellant Damodar Prasad. No witness has otherwise, stated against the appellant Damodar Prasad.
11 Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996 [Damodar Prasad Rajoria and others Vs. State of M.P. ] Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the involvement of the appellant Damodar Prasad in the offence. Accordingly, he is acquitted of all the charges.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants No.2 M.L. Verma and appellant No.3 Janki Prasad are held guilty of committing offence under Sections 420 and 163 of I.P.C. However, the appellant no.1 Damodar is acquitted of all the charges.
Heard on the question of sentence.
It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellants No.2 and 3, namely, M.L. Verma and Janki Prasad that the incident is alleged to have taken place in the year 1983-1984 and more than 33 years have passed, therefore, a lenient view may be adopted.
In the present case, by forging the signatures of the then Chief Minister, a recommendation order was obtained for appointment of the complainants on the post of L.D.C. and money was taken by the appellants from the complainant Satish (P.W.1). Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court has already adopted a very lenient view in awarding the jail sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months respectively. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court does not call for any interference.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence dated dated 12-10- 1996 passed by Special Judge, Bhopal in Special Sessions Trial No.8/1992 is affirmed so far as it relates to the appellant No.2- M.L. Verma and appellant No.3-Janki Prasad Verma, but the judgment and sentence so far as it relates to appellant no.1- Damodar is concerned, the same is set aside and the appellant no.1-Damodar is acquitted of all the charges.
The appellant no.1-Damodar is on bail. His bail bond and surety bonds are discharged.
12 Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996 [Damodar Prasad Rajoria and others Vs. State of M.P. ] The appellants no.2-M.L. Verma and appellant No.3-Janki Prasad Verma are also on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are hereby cancelled. They are directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court for undergoing the jail sentence.
The appeal filed by the appellant no.1 Damodar is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the appellant no.2-M.L. Verma and appellant No.3-Janaki Prasad Verma is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge 15/02/2018 Arun* Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.02.16 16:14:04 +05'30' 13 Criminal Appeal No.1912/1996 [Damodar Prasad Rajoria and others Vs. State of M.P. ] HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT JABALPUR Jabalpur: Dated 15/2/2018 Shri Shashank Shekhar, Counsel for appellant no.1. Shri Amit Verma, Counsel for appellants no. 2 and 3. Shri Vivek Lakhera, Counsel for the respondent/CID. Arguments heard.
Judgment dictated, signed and dated on separate sheets.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun*