Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh Asi on 2 August, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRA No.423-SBA of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA No.423-SBA of 2001
Date of Decision:-2.8.2013
State of Punjab
...Appellant
Versus
Baldev Singh ASI
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.K.S.Aulakh, A.A.G. Punjab for the appellant-State.
Ms.Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate for the respondent.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The crux of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that ASI Baldev Singh (retired) respondent-accused (for brevity "the accused") was recruited on 10.12.1973 as a Constable in Punjab Police after completing all the formalities, medical examination and character verification. On 30.6.1995, SP Jagraon (PW6) received an anonymous complaint to the effect that the accused had submitted a false school leaving certificate (Ex.PW3/1) issued by the Gram Panchayat High School, Bhorchhi Rajputan at the time of his recruitment. As per the said certificate, he was shown to be remained admitted in 10th class from 5.4.1972 to 9.4.1972. On verification, this certificate was found to be CRA No.423-SBA of 2001 2 fake. The SP, Jagraon prepared the report dated 19.1.1996 (Ex.PW6/B) of SSP Jagraon in this respect.
2. Leveling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution that the accused had submitted a false indicated certificate at the time of his recruitment and even the subsequent certificate furnished by him to SSP was found to be false. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint (Ex.PA), the present criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.14 dated 12.2.1996, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 420, 468 and 471 IPC by the police of Police Station Kotwali, Ludhiana in the manner depicted here-in-above.
3. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the accused to face the trial for the pointed offences.
4. Having completed all the codal formalities, the accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of offences in question by the trial Court. As he did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.
5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, examined PW1 Headmaster Kulwinder Singh of Gram Panchayat High School, Bhorchhi Rajputan, who has stated, on the basis of record, that the accused was never admitted in his school in the year 1972 nor there is any entry to that effect in the record. PW2 Sant Singh, Superintendent from the office of DIG, Ludhiana, has deposed that an anonymous complaint was received against the accused. As per CRA No.423-SBA of 2001 3 inquiry, the present case was registered against him on the basis of complaint/report (Ex.PA) of SSP Ludhiana.
6. Sequelly, PW3 HC Roshan Lal has stated on the basis of record that the accused was initially recruited in police department as constable on 10.12.1973 and copies of certificate (Ex.PW3/1) and character roll (Ex.PW3/2) submitted by him, were found to be false. These were taken into possession by the police. In cross-examination, he feigned ignorance with regard to qualification for the recruitment of constable in the year 1973. The certificate (Ex.PW3/1) was not produced in his presence. The original record was not prepared by him. The record was prepared on 14.1.1976, again said on 28.12.1973. The form at Serial No.9 (Ex.DA) in the original CRC was prepared in the office of SSP Ludhiana. The educational qualification is mentioned as matriculation in Ex.DA, but it was changed by over writing and cutting as ninth class.
7. The next to note is the testimony of PW4 SI Jarnail Singh, who has maintained that on 14.2.1996, he had received the file of this case for investigation. On 16.2.1996, he recorded the statements of Kulwinder Singh (PW1) and Ranjit Singh Headmasters. On 8.3.1996, he took into possession the appointment letter (Ex.PW4/A), report (Ex.PW4/B) and other recruitment records (Ex.PW4/C to Ex.PW4/E), vide recovery memos (Ex.PW4/1 & Ex.PW4/2). He confirmed that after completion of the investigation, the final police report was prepared against the accused by SI/SHO Gurinderjit Singh. Likewise, PW5 SI Hardip Singh has proved the appointment, transfer, orders and other record of the accused (Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/C). He has also proved the CRA No.423-SBA of 2001 4 copies of order (Ex.PW5/D) of SSP Sangrur and sanction (Ex.PW5/E). In cross-examination, he admitted that as per record, there is no application form produced by the accused to join service. He did not tell the minimum qualification fixed for the post of constable in those days.
8. The last to note is the testimony of PW6 SP (D) Hartej Singh Sekhon, who had conducted inquiry and submitted his reports (Ex.PW6/A & Ex.PW6/B). He also obtained certificate (Ex.PW6/C) and school leaving certificate (Ex.PW6/D) issued by PW1 Kulwinder Singh Headmaster. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the order (Ex.PW5/F) of SSP Jagraon in documentary evidence.
9. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable him to explain any circumstance appearing against him therein, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. However, he has denied the prosecution evidence in its entirety and pleaded false implication in the following manner:-
"I never studied in Govt. High School, Borchhi Rajputan, District Amritsar. I never produced certificate Ex.PW3/1 while joining as constable on 20.12.1973 and in fact I was studied in Siri Guru Anged Dev Khalsa High School, Khadur Sahib Amritsar and I produce the certificate Ex.DA while joining as a constable. Certificate (Ex.PW3/A) has been attached with my file by some person who is against me when I have represented before the DIG Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, to give a promotion to me according to my seniority. I have been falsely implicated in this case. I am innocent. I will produce defence in this case."
10. The accused, in order to prove his line of defence, has examined DW1 Sardool Singh, retired Headmaster of Govt. High School, Miawind, who has stated that he joined the Govt. High School, Miawind CRA No.423-SBA of 2001 5 in October, 1961 as a Teacher. The accused is known to him, who had been studying and passed 8th standard examination from their school. He proved the original character certificate dated 23.11.1972 (Ex.DW1/A) of the accused.
11. Similarly, DW2 Bhag Singh has deposed that he was posted as Punjabi Teacher in Shri Guru Anged Dev Khalsa High School, Khadoor Sahib, Distt. Amritsar on 10.5.1972 and identified the signatures of Headmaster Narinder Nath on certificate (Ex.DA). He also identified his signatures on Ex.D/A. He has categorically stated that he knew the accused, who was studying and had passed ninth class from their school.
12. Sequelly, DW3 Wasan Singh has deposed that the accused had passed Middle standard from the Govt. High School Miawind, Distt. Amritsar. He was got admitted in the 9th class in Siri Guru Angad Dev Khalsa High School, Khadoor Sahib. After passing 9th class from Khadoor Sahib, he was got admitted in 10th class. He has testified certificate (Ex.DA). There was no qualification for recruitment of constable when the accused joined his service. This is all the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the parties.
13. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused, by virtue of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 26.5.2000, which, in substance, is as under
(paras 21 and 22):-
"21. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State, Ld. defence counsel and have also gone through the evidence on the file carefully. The certificate which has been alleged to be forged has been brought on record as Ex.PW3/1. PW1, who is the Headmaster of Gram Panchayat of village Bhorchi Rajputan has deposed that the accused Baldev Singh was never got admitted in any Class in that School, in CRA No.423-SBA of 2001 6 the year 1972. He further deposed that Mark A and Ex.PW3/1 was not issued by their School authorities and the signatures of the Headmaster Dalbir Singh upon that certificate had been forged. In his cross examination, he has stated that Mark A is easily available in the Market. The defence taken by the accused is also that he never attended the school at (Sic. of) the Gram Panchayat of village Bhorchi Rajputan, District Amritsar and some one without the knowledge of the accused, placed it in his service book. The accused has also brought on record Ex.DW/1, the character certificate of Government High School Mia Wind Amritsar and Ex.DA, School Leaving certificate. It (Sic. does not) appeal to the reason, that if the accused was having the genuine certificate, then there was no need for him to place a forged certificate on record for getting his appointment as Constable in the Punjab Police. It has been alleged by the prosecution that the High School Khaddoor Sahib had closed in the year 1968. But PW4 Jarnail Singh has stated that as per the record, the District Education Officer, till December, 1975, Siri Guru Anged Dev High School, Khadoor Sahib got the grants. So this plea of prosecution is falsified that this school got closed in the year 1968. PW3 HC Roshan Lal had admitted that at Mark A in Ex.DA, there is an overwriting and cutting and showed its ignorance regarding these cuttings. He further stated that he had seen the original record of CRC in which no certificate regarding qualification of ninth passed had been placed on record. He further stated that there is no entry in Ex.DA about Ex.PW3/1, so the possibility cannot be ruled out that later on some one might have placed that certificate in the file of the accused. PW6 Hardev Singh Sekhon, SP(D), Khanna, District Ludhiana, deposed that he got conducted the inquiry and submitted his report Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B. He further deposed that he got recorded the statement of Sarwan Singh and Parminder Singh, Headmasters. But in his cross examination, he has stated that he did not go to the school himself. He further stated that he did not go to the District Education Officer, Amritsar to verify the fact whether Siri Guru Anged Dev High School was in existence in the year 1972-73. He has not specifically denied that Siri Guru Anged Dev High School, Khadoor Sahib was in existence at that time and this school used to receive grants from the District Education Officer, Amritsar.
So, the person who conducted the inquiry does not bother to record the statements of the Headmaster and the District Education Officer. He did not bother to visit the office of the District Education Officer, Amritsar to verify that whether Siri Guru Anged Dev High School, Khadoor Sahib was in existence in the year 1972-73 or not. So much reliance cannot be placed on his inquiry.
22. DW1 the retired Headmaster of Govt. High School Mia Wind has deposed that in the year 1961, accused used to study in their school and he passed the CRA No.423-SBA of 2001 7 Middle Standard from that school. He also proved on record, copy of School Leaving certificate of the accused Ex.DW1/A. DW2 Bhag Singh deposed on oath that on 10.5.1972, he was working as Punjabi Teacher in the Siri Guru Anged Dev High School, Khadoor Sahib and Narinder Nath was the Headmaster. He proved on record certificate Ex.DA and he identified the signatures of the Headmaster upon it. He further stated that the accused used to study in that school and he passed the Ninth Class in that school and Ex.DA is the School Leaving certificate of the accused, when he was studying in the 10th class. He further stated that Narinder Nath Headmaster has already died."
14. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Punjab has preferred the instant appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter.
15. After hearing the learned counsel for parties, going through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present appeal in this context.
16. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the scope of jurisdiction of the appellate Court in case of acquittal, was determined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a celebrated judgment in case Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. 2008(10) SCC 450. Having considering the scope of sections 378, 386 Cr.PC and a line of various previous judgments on the point, it was ruled as under (Paras 74 & 75):-
"74. The following principles emerge from the cases above:
1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial CRA No.423-SBA of 2001 8 court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong.
75. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons"
for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii)The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
17. Such thus being the legal position and evidence on record, now the short & significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this case is, as to whether the trial Court has committed such jurisdictional error to acquit the accused and there are substantial and compelling reasons to set aside the judgment of acquittal or not ? CRA No.423-SBA of 2001 9
18. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative, as the prosecution has miserably failed in this relevant direction and the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.
19. As is evident from the record that the accused was recruited as constable on 10.12.1973 in Punjab Police. As per report (Ex.PW6/B) of SP, he was found medically fit. On 24.12.1973, his character was verified, which was found to be fit and the SSP Amritsar has specifically confirmed in his report that the accused was studying in 9th class in Govt. High School, Miawind, District Amritsar,, which is clear from the report (Ex.PW6/B). According to the prosecution that the certificate, purported to have been issued by the Gram Panchayat High School, Bhorchhi Rajputan, Distt. Amritsar, copy of which, is (Ex.PW3/1), was forged, but the story of the prosecution is unfounded.
20. Ex facie, the argument of learned State counsel that since the certified copy of certificate (Ex.PW3/1) submitted by the accused at the time of his recruitment was forged, so, the trial Court has committed a legal mistake to acquit him, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well and deserves to be ignored for more than one reasons.
21. At the first instance, there is not an iota of evidence on record even to suggest remotely that any educational qualification was ever prescribed for the post of constable in the year 1973-74. Moreover, on the instructions from the concerned department, the learned State counsel has fairly acknowledged that neither there was any requirement to produce educational certificates at the time of recruitment in the year CRA No.423-SBA of 2001 10 1973-74 nor even at the time of promotion, as per the Punjab Police Rules. Therefore, if there was no such requirement to produce the educational certificates, then, the story of the prosecution is highly improbable and becomes doubtful. There was no occasion for the accused to produce the alleged certificate (Ex.PW3/1) at the relevant time.
22. Not only that, as per the character roll (mark-A) in the column of educational qualification, the educational qualification was initially written as 9th pass, then it was changed as Matriculation. Again, it was changed & cut and written as 9th pass to create the doubt, but at point-B of the same form (mark-A), there is clearly written "Slightly educated 9th pass". This record was subsequently prepared, which corroborates the probable defence version that the accused had supplied correct information, but some interested person has inserted the photo copy of certificate (Ex.PW3/1) to throw him out of job or at least to ignore his promotion. The line of defence adopted by him from the very beginning was that he has passed middle standard examination from Government High School, Miawind, District Amritsar, by virtue of certificate (Ex.DW/1). Thereafter, he obtained admission in 9th class in Siri Guru Anged Dev Khalsa High School, Khadoor Sahib. Having passed 9th class, he attended the 10th class in the same very school and left the school, by virtue of the school leaving certificate (Ex.DA).
23. That means, it stands proved from the certificate (Ex.DW/1) that the accused has passed the middle standard examination from Government High School, Miawind, District Amritsar. He got admission in 9th class in Siri Guru Anged Dev Khalsa High School, Khadoor Sahib CRA No.423-SBA of 2001 11 and after passing 9th class, he attended the 10th class in the same very school and left the school, by way of the school leaving certificate (Ex.DA). Once it stands proved by DW1 to DW3 that the accused was having a genuine certificate (Ex.DW/1) and school leaving certificate (Ex.DA), in that eventuality, it does not appeal to reason as to why he would produce fake certificate (Ex.PW3/1), particularly, when no qualification for the post of constable or for further promotion was prescribed in the year 1973-74 in the Punjab Police Rules. In this manner, the prosecution has not brought the sufficient evidence on record to bring guilt home to the accused.
24. Therefore, taking into consideration the insufficiency, inconsistency of evidence, highly improbable story of prosecution, totality of the facts & circumstances emerging out of the record as discussed here-in-above, to me, the trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective and correctly acquitted the accused.
25. Meaning thereby, the trial Magistrate has recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. The learned State counsel did not point out any material, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Such articulated impugned judgment of acquittal, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned State counsel, so, the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining CRA No.423-SBA of 2001 12 circumstances of the case.
26. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
27. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant State appeal is hereby dismissed as such.
Sd/-
2.8.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No