Tripura High Court
Sri Rajkumar Chakma vs The State Of Tripura on 15 March, 2022
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.Petn 20 of 2018
Sri Rajkumar Chakma
S/o Lt. Satrughana Chakma,
Of Nabicheera, PS: Pacharthal,
Unokoti Tripura District
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. K. Biswas, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. K. Pal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. PP.
Date of hearing : 08.03.2022.
Date of pronouncement : 15.03.2022.
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order
This is a petition under Section 397(1) read with section 401 of the CrPC, 1973 against the dismissal of appeal vide order dated 05.04.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2016 of the revision petitioner passed by the Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in connection with Crl.(A) 02 of 2016 which was arising out of order dated 05.12.2015 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kanchanpur, North Tripura, in case No.GR 106 of 2012.
[2] The brief fact of the prosecution is that one Soniyel Reang @ Saniyel Rai Reang of Chutta Kangrai, P/S- Kanchanpur, North Tripura on being convicted by the Ld. Court of Additional Session Judge Dharmanagar, North Tripura in connection with Kanchanpur P/S Case No. 02/2008, U/S 302 of IPC preferred appeal against the said order of Page 2 of 19 conviction and sentenced before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, Agartala claiming himself to be juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence, which was alleged to have taken place on 06.01.2008. In support of his contention said Soniel Reang @ Saniyel Rai Reang produced a photocopy of the Transfer Certificate bearing Serial No. 130082, Damcherra, North Tripura, wherein, the date of birth of said Soniyel Reang @ Saniyeal Rai Reang as per Admission Register was alleged to have been recorded as 02.07.1992. The same was taken up for hearing by the Hon'ble High Court for order on 29.05.2012. The Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 25.09.2012 in the said application was pleased to direct an inquiry to be made into the age of the said Soniyel Reang @ Saniyeal Rai Reang. In pursuant to the said order Ld. Additional District and Session Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura submitted his Enquiry Report dated 15.06.2012 in the said case along with the Enquiry Report which was again listed for hearing before the Hon'ble High Court for order. The Hon'ble High court after considering the said enquiry report and in the interest of justice by order dated 26.06.2012, was pleased to direct the Headmaster/Headmistress/Teacher-in-Charge of Thumsaraipara S.B. School to produce the Admission Register and also the register/recorded of Transfer Certificate of the said school in respect of the said then convict-appellant Sri Soniyel Reang before the Hon'ble High Court on 22.06.2012. In compliance of the said order dated 20.06.2012 Sri Raj Kumar Chakma, who was then Teacher-in-Charge of the said Thumsaraipra, J. B School at the relevant point of time, who issued the Page 3 of 19 said "Transfer Certificate" in questioned, appeared before the Hon'ble High Court on 26.06.2012 with the school admission register along with another Sri Ardhendu Kumar, the then Teacher-in-Charge of the said school at that relevant point of period, who took over the charge of the said school from said Raj Kumar Chakma on 31.12.2012. The Hon'ble High Court found the "Students Admission Register" of the said school to have contained apparent manipulation in the serial bearing No.195 of Page No.21 of the said Admission Register Because of the said prima- facie manipulation found in the said "Students Admission Register" the subsequent serial numbers, in respect of the names of the students was alleged to have been altered or changed in the said Register. Consequently, finding prima-facie manipulation in the said "Transfer Certificate" which was issued on 26.08.2011 in favour of the said then convict appellant namely, Sri Soniyel Reang @ Saniyel Rai Reang. Hon'ble High Court is then regarded the same as forged document and the person issued the said "Transfer Certificate" was prima-facie and primarily held to be responsible for such manipulation. Hence, a case was filed against the accused persons before the Damcherra Police Station by the informant of the case i.e. the Deputy Register (Judicial), Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, Agartala. [3] On the basis of the said written FIR the Officer-In-Charge of the Damcherra Police station registered the same as Damcherra Police Station Case no.17/2013, dated 04.07.2012, Under Section 197/466/468/471 of IPC against the accused persons and the In- Charge, Officer-In-Charge of the Damcherra Police Station SI of Police Page 4 of 19 namely, Sri Parikshit Debbarma, himself took up the investigation of the case as Investigating Officer, in short IO. In course of the investigation, the IO visited the place of occurrence, in short PO, prepared hand sketch map of the PO along with index of the PO in a separate sheet of paper and also examined available witnesses and recorded their statements U/S 161 of CrPC. During investigation the IO also seized all the relevant documents, registers including the carbon copy of the "Transfer Certificate" in question of Thumsaraipra, S.B. School and other relevant documents of the office of the Schools Inspector, Damcherra, North Tripura as well as other related documents of Chutta Kangrai J.B School and from the office of the Inspector of Schools Education, Dharmanagar, North Tripura along with other Xerox copies and documents in connection with the case, including the Xerox copy "Transer Certificate" and the carbon copy "Transfer Certificate" in question. The IO also arrested the accused namely Sri Raj Kumar Chakama and took him under his custody, but released him on bail on the strength of the anticipatory bail issued in his favour by the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, subject to furnishing of a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surely of like amount. During investigation the IO also collected the specimen signatures/hand writings of the accused namely, Sri Raj Kumar Chakma and also secured the specimen hand writings and signatures of another person namely, Sri Kamal Reang for the interest of the case. The IO of the case also send the said specimen signatures of the accused before the SFSL, Narsingarh, Agartala for its examination and opinion thereof. Page 5 of 19 The IO also prays for showing arrest of another accused Sri Soniyel Reang @ Saniyel Rai Reang in connection with the instant case, which was also allowed by this Court. In course of investigation the IO of the case also procured the report of the SFSL, Narsingarh, Agartala and after completion of the investigation, finding prima-facie evidence in the case submitted charge sheet vide DMC P/S C/S No. 18/2013, U/S 197/466/468 of IPC against the accused Sri Raj Kumar Chakma and U/S 468/471 of IPC against the accused namely, Sri Soniyel Reang @ Saniyel Rai Reang.
[4] Cognizance of the offence was taken by the trial court for the offences punishable U/S 197/466/468 of IPC against the accused namely, Sri Raj Kumar Chakma and U/S 468/471 of IPC against the accused namely, Soniyeal Reang @ Saniyel Rai Reang and after supply of accused copy charge was framed for the offences punishable U/S 471 of IPC against the accused Sri Soniyel Reang @ Saniyel Rai Reang and U/S 197/466/468 of IPC against the accused namely, Sri Raj Kumar Chakma. The contests of the same were read over the explained to them, to which both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
[5] During trial the prosecution side examined as many as 49(forty nine) witnesses, as well as, exhibited 21 documents. [6] Considering the offences and the charge framed against the accused persons the trial has made the following points for decision in the case for its determination:
Page 6 of 19
1. Whether on 26.08.2011 accused namely, Sri Raj Kumar Chakma was the Teacher-in-Charge of Thumsaraipara J.B. School, Damcherra, North Tripura?
2. Whether accused Sri Raj Kumar Chakma issued or signed a false transfer certificate on 26.08.2011 in the name of one Sri Soniyel Reang of Thumsaraipara J.B.School bearing Sl. NO.
130082, and such certificate being by law in admissible as evidence and used as evidence for the purpose of securing benefit knowingfully that the certificate is false?
3. Whether accused Sri Raj Kumar Chakma after manipulating the "Student Admission Register" of Thumsaraipara J.B. School in SL. No. 195 of Page No.21 of the said Students Admission Register issued a forged "Transfer Certificate"
bearing Sl.No. 130082 in the name of one Sri Soniyel Reang @ Saniyel Rai Reang dated 26.08.2011 in his official capacity as Teacher-In-Charge of the said school?
4. Whether accused Sri Raj Kumar Chakma committed forgery of "Transfer Certificate" bearing Sl. No. 130082 of Thumsaraipara J.B.School in the name of the Sri Soniyel Reang on 26.08.2011 intending that the said forged "Transfer Certificate" be used for the purpose of cheating?
5. Whether accused namely, Sri Soniyel Reang @ Saniyel Rai Reang fraudulently or dishonestly used the forged transfer certificate bearing Sl.No. 130082 issued in his favour dated 26.08.2011 by Teacher-In-Charge, Thumsaraipara J.B. School as genuine knowingfully that the said transfer certificate being forged document.
[7] PW1, Sri Indrajoy Reang has deposed that in the year 1995 he got the job of Kokborok Teacher, and he joined at Chuta Kangarai J.B. School at Kangarai ADC village and in the year 1998 he was promoted as Teacher in charge of the same school and the accused Soniyel Reang was a student of his school and he was very poor in his studies and he was irregular in attendance. On 07.01.2003 he issued a transfer certificate to Soniyel Reang attesting to the fact that he had passed the examination of class-V and he proved the transfer certificate as exhibit-1 and his signature thereon as exhibit -1/1. On 21.03.2000 he had prepared list of students of his school for the grant of scholarship to the said students and he proved the list as exhibit-2 and Page 7 of 19 his signatures thereon as exhibit-2/1, exhibit-2/2 and exhibit2/3 respectively. He could not identify accused Soniyel Reang as he was presented u/s. 317 of CrPC but he could identify accused Raj Kumar Chakma in the dock.
[8] PW2, Samarendra Debarma has deposed that on 29.08.2012 he was posted as Assistant Headmaster at Ramguna C.P HS School and on that date he issued a self written certificate stating that Soniyel Reang was a student of the school during the year 2003 and his date of birth according to school admission register was 07.02.1989 and that transfer certificate bearing serial No.1087839 was issued to Sri Soniyel Reang on 19.08.2011 and he had given the certificate on perusal of the school record and he proved the self written certificate issued by him on 29.08.2012 as exhibit-3 and his signature thereon as exhibit-3/1. He has also stated that he had joined as Assistant Headmaster at Ramguna C.P HS school on 01.03.2007. He has further stated that he had joined as Assistant Headmaster at Ramguna CP HS School on 01.03.2007 and from the admission records he could find that Sri Soniyel Reang was a student of their school during the year 2003 and he was studied in Class-VI at that time. Subsequently on receipt of an application from Sri Soniyel Reang he issued the transfer certificate bearing no.10877839 to Sri Soniyel Reang on 19.08.2011. He could not identify accused Soniyel Reang as he was represented u/s. 317 of CrPC. He has stated that on 29.08.2012 he had produced and given one original admission form, on original transfer certificate and one original progress report of Sri Soniyel Reang from his school record Page 8 of 19 to a police officer as per his request in c/w the investigation of this case and he proved the original admission form of Sri Soniyel Reang as exhibit-4 (subject to objection by Ld. Defence counsel) In cross-examination he has stated that in the original admission form of Sri Soniyel Reang the date of submission of the form was not mentioned neither there was any signature of Sri Soniyel reang on it.
[9] PW 4, Binasing Reang has deposed that accused Soniyel Reang is his nephew and accused Raj Kumar Ckakma is the son in law of his younger sister and accused Raj Kumar Chakma worked as a Teacher at Thumsarai Para School at Damcherra and he issued a transfer certificate to Soniyel Reang though Soniyel Reang was not a student of his school. PW 4 has further stated that one day more than a year ago accused Raj Kumar Chakma asked him to put his signature in a blank piece of paper as guardian of Soniyel Reang and accordingly he put his signature and after query from Raj Kumar Reang he came to know that his signature was taken for an application and after about a week from the incident Soniyel Reang came home from Jail and PW 4 thought that his signature was taken for the release of Soniyel Reang. Though the proved his signature on the application addressed to the Headmaster Thumsarai para SB school seized on 09.08.2012 as exhibit 5 but he told that he put his signature on a blank paper not on any application. He could not identify accused Soniyel Reang as he was represented u/s 317 of CrPC but he could identify accused Raj Kumar Chakma in the dock.
Page 9 of 19[10] PW 35 Sambhu Charan had deposed that in the year 1993 he joined as a Primary Teacher at Thumcharaipar JB school under Damcherra PS and upto the year 2001 he served there as a primary teacher and from the year 1995 to 2001 AD he was serving as In- Charge Headmaster of that school and he knew accused Raj Kumar Chakma as a teacher and he came to learn that Raj Kumar Chakma took charge as In-charge Headmaster of that school after his transfer from that school. He could not say the name of the complainant of this case. O/c of Damcherra PS disclosed to him that he had to give deposition before the court in c/w discrepancy of the certificate of a student. He identified accused Raj Kumar Chakma in the dock. [11] PW 47 Swapan Debbarma has deposed that on 04.08.2012 he was posted as O/C of Damcherra PS and he took up the charge of the investigation of this case as per desire of the Higher Authority and in this case the previous IP was Parikshit Debbarma, SI of Police the then O/C In charge of Damcherra PS. He has deposed that in this case the complainant was Sri Subendu Dasgupta, Deputy Registrar (J) of the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati, Agartala Bench and the case was filed against the Headmaster of Thumcharaipara SB School namely Mr. Raj Kumar Chakma and against other convict namely Soniyel Reang @ Soniyel Rai Reang and after taking charge of the investigation he examined and recorded 161 statement of total 41 Nos of witnesses and he also prepared seizure list on different items consisting of four seizure lists. He has further told that on 09.08.2012 he prepared a seizure list in c/w one application filed by accused Soniyel Reang for getting a Page 10 of 19 transfer certificate and he proved the seizure list as exhibit-6 as a whole and his signature thereon as exhibit -6/3. He has further stated that on 29.08.2012 he also prepared seizure list in c/w one original admission form of Soniyel Reang, one TC and one progress report of accused Soniyel Reang and he proved the seizure list as exhibit-8 as a whole and his signature thereon as exhibit 8/2 He has further added that on 19.10.2012 he prepared seizure list of one marksheet book register and he proved the same as exhibit- 19 and his signature thereon as exhibit 19/2. He has deposed that he also collected specimen handwriting of Raj Kumar Chakma as well as specimen handwriting of Kamal Reang and he proved the whole specimen signature of lists of Raj Kumar Chakma as exhibit-15 as a whole and his signature thereon as exhibit- 15/2.
[12] After examining the PWs and the documents which were exhibited during the trial, point No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 for decision and determination in the case are decided in favour of the prosecution and against the accused namely, Sri Raj Kumar Chakma. However, point No.5 for decision in the case is decided in favour of the accused namely, Sri Soniyel Reang @ Saniyel Rai Reang and against the prosecution. [13] Finally by the order dated 05.12.2015 passed in GR 106 of 2012, the trial court has observed in the following manner:
"In the result, the prosecution has been able to establish and prove the case beyond shadow of doubt for the offences alleged in the case against the accused namely, Sri Raj Kumar Chakma. Hence, accused namely Sri Raj Kumar Chakma is hereby convicted for the offence charged punishable Under Section 197 of IPC read with Section 193 of IPC and is sentenced to simple imprisonment for 01(one) year and is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only), in Page 11 of 19 default to pay the said fine money to suffer another simple imprisonment for 03(three) months and is also convicted for the offence charged punishable under Section 466 of IPC and is sentenced to simple imprisonment for 01(one) years along with a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) in default to pay the fine money to suffer another simple imprisonment for 03 (three) months and again convicted for the offence charged punishable under section 468 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer again another 01 (one) year of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) in default to pay the said fine money to suffer another simple imprisonment for 03 (three) months.
The convict namely, Sri Raj Kumar Chakma is to suffer the said conviction and sentence imposed upon him consecutively one after another, in other words the sentence shall return consecutively i.e. a total period of sentence of 03(three) years along with the total fine of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand only) in default to suffer another total 09(nine) months of simple imprisonment.
However, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond shadow of doubt against another accused namely, Sri Soniyel Reang @ Saniyel Rai Reang for the offence charged in the case against him. Hence, accused namely, Sri Soniyel Reang @ Saniyel Rai Reang is hereby acquitted for the offence charged punishable U/S 471 of IPC and he is set at liberty."
[14] Aggrieved by the order of conviction dated 05.12.2015, the petitioner herein preferred a criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2016 in the court of the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar.
The lower appellate court by the order dated 05.04.2018 has observed in the following manner.
In view of the above discussions made hereinabove, I find taht the transfer certificate bearing Sl No.130082 dated 26.08.2011 wherein the date of birth of Soniyel Reang was recorded as 12.07.1992 issued by accused Rajkumar Chakma, Teacher-In-Charge, Thusarai Para S.B. School, Damcherra, North Tripura District is a forged one and so I find no material infirmity in the judgment and order of conviction of Ld. Trial court which needs any interference by way of this appeal and the same needs to be upheld.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.12.2015 passed by Ld. Sub-Divisional Page 12 of 19 Judicial Magistrate, Kanchanpur, North Tripura District in Case No.RGR 106 of 2012 convicting the accused- appellant namely Sri Rajkumar Chakma is hereby upheld in toto.
[15] Aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2018 of the lower appellate court, the petitioner herein has approached this court by way of filing the review petition.
[16] Heard counsel for the parties. [17] It is contended by Mr. P. K Biswas, learned senior counsel
for the appellant that lower appellate court had miserably failed to appreciate the law, facts and circumstances and as such the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. It is also contended by Mr. Biswas, learned counsel that there are material discrepancies between the statements of the witnesses, yet this fact was not at all considered by the trial court or by the lower appellate court. In support of his contention the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Biswas, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the apex court in State of Maharashtra vs. Ashok Chotelal Shukla reported in (1997) 11 SCC 26 where in the apex court has observed as follows:
22. The High Court believed that the conduct of the respondent was rather unnatural and unusual but it could not be regarded as an incriminating circumstance as the respondent must have been in confused state of mind in view of the circumstances in which he was placed and possibly because he must have thought that he would become the target of attack of his in laws and held responsible for Vibha's death. The High Court also held that the silence of the accused while answering certain questions put to him while he was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal procedure code was not indicating of his guilt as " it cannot be forgotten that prisoners in the dock mostly act on the advice they get from their lawyers" and again "our criminal jurisprudence does not require the accused to open his mouth even when he is completely innocent and no adverse inference can be drawn against him if he chooses not to speak."Page 13 of 19
[18] Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of the apex court in Zwinglee Ariel vs. State of Mdhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 SC 15 where in the apex court has observed as follows:
14. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh has sought to support the conclusions of the High Court on the ground that as an honest man the appellant should; have indignantly repudiated the suggestion of his having taken a bribe and should have then and there explicitly stated that he was carrying to the pleader what was represented to be a letter. The fact that the appellant did not make that answer then and there is certainly a fact which goes to weaken his defence that he is putting forward. But it should be borne in mind that the prosecution was all the time making a case of guilt founded on the alleged confessional statements and not on the conduct of the appellant in not putting forward such a defence at the time the notes were found on his person. The omission to put up such a defence was never considered to be an incriminating circumstance until the matter came before the High Court. Indeed, if this failure to make a categorical statement of the nature indicated by learned counsel had been raised or even hinted at the trial one would have expected that the appellant would surely insert some explanation in his lengthy written statement.
In his examination under Section 342, Criminal P. C. this circumstance was never put to the appellant and the appellant had no chance of giving any explanation whatever. Joshi and Deo were never examined by the police under Section 162 and the appellants did not get an opportunity of testing their memory by reference to the statements of those witnesses made immediately after the occurrence. In the premises, very great weight ought not to be attached to this conduct of the appellant. At the highest, such conduct in not giving out his case when he was confronted with the notes in the envelope sticking out of his shirt pocket and carried openly may weaken his defence and may to some extent reinforce the positive evidence adduced by the prosecution, if such evidence is otherwise reliable at all.
If, however, the prosecution evidence as a whole is unreliable and cannot be accepted as correct as held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for specific reasons given by him, the conduct of the appellant can be of no avail to the prosecution, for such conduct of silence can never be permitted to become a substitute for proof by the prosecution. The substantive prosecution evidence being rejected as unworthy of credit, the alleged conduct must be referable to some innocent reason. Different persons react in different ways in similar circumstances and in the absence of satisfactory evidence the court ought not to treat the case as positively proved beyond reasonable doubt only by reason of the appellant's failure to put up his defence immediately when he was confronted with the Page 14 of 19 three notes. Taking all the surrounding circumstances into consideration and in view of the unsatisfactory evidence adduced by the prosecution we think that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant."
[19] In reply, it is contended by the counsel for the respondent Mr. S. Debhat, learned Addl. PP that the document is found to be forged and fabricated document has been placed before this court in order to help the accused person to say that he is juvenile. But the crucial point which falls for consideration is who is the author of the fabricated document for that issue neither specific question has been framed nor specific investigation has been made to that effect. [20] Counsel for the state-respondent Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has relied on the judgment of the apex court in Mandhari vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in (2002) 4 SCC 308 wherein the apex court has observed as follows:
3. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence which has been accepted both by the trial court as well as the High Court in appeal.
4. The most culpable circumstance found to have been proved and accepted by the courts below against the accused is that he had himself made a false report of commission of suicide by his wife and admitted in his examination under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code that he was present in the house at the time of incident.
His case was that he heard some sound in the adjoining room and when went inside, found his wife hanging by neck with a sari tied on the rafter of the roof of the house. He then untied the sari, brought down the dead body, first reported the matter to the villagers and then to the police. The post-mortem report prepared on autopsy conducted by Dr. PC Jain (PW-8) shows that there was ligature mark on the neck of the deceased which was anti-mortem. The opinion of the doctor is clear and definite that such ligature mark of 5 cm width in horizontal position cannot be caused by hanging but could have been caused by strangulation. Medical evidence, therefore, completely falsifies the case of the appellant that on his return from the field to his house he had found his wife hanging and thus she had committed suicide. The conduct of the accused is also not natural. When he found his wife hanging by neck he neither raised any hue and cry nor Page 15 of 19 called any villagers living nearby. He all alone brought down the body hanging from the roof. He thereafter did not report the matter immediately. When villagers collected he took a plea that she had committed suicide. He also did not report the matter on his own but, as is deposed by Dilboodh (PW-2), Kotwar, it is on his insistence and of the Sarpanch that he reported the matter to the Police. These witnesses also stated that the wife had complained in the past to the Panchayat that the appellant was ill-treating her and was not providing her food.
[2] Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl.PP has also placed his reliance on another judgment of the apex court in State of Rajasthan vs. Thakur Singh reported in (2014) 12 SCC 211, wherein the apex court has observed in the following manner:
15. We find that the High Court has not at all considered the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
This section provides, inter alia, that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
18. Reliance was placed by this Court on Ganeshal vs. State of Maharashtra in which case the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife inside his house. Since the death had occurred in his custody, it was held that the appellant was under an obligation to give an explanation for the cause of death in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant was a prime accused in the commissions of murder of his wife.
[22] After perusing the records and considering the submission made by the counsel for the parties, this court feels that the Sections 193, 197, 466 and 468 of the IPC are not relevant with regard to convicting the petitioner herein.
"193. Punishment for false evidence.--Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be Page 16 of 19 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.--A trial before a Court-martial2 is a judicial proceeding.
Explanation 2.--An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.
197. Issuing or signing false certificate.--Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
466. Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.-- [Whoever forges a document or an electronic record], purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
[23] With regard to the framing of charges under Sections 211, 212 and 213 of the CrPC, this court feels that they are also not specifically made against the petitioner. Therefore, it is apposite to reproduce Sections 211, 212 and 213 of the CrPC herein below:
211. Contents of charge.--(1) Every charge under this Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged.
(2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only.
(3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name, so much of the definition of the offence Page 17 of 19 must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge.
(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case.
(6) The charge shall be written in the language of the Court.
(7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable, by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit to award for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it at any time before sentence is passed.
212. Particulars as to time, place and person.--(1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable property, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum or, as the case may be, describe the movable property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 219;
Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year.
213. When manner of committing offence must be stated.--When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose."
Page 18 of 19[24] Referring to Section 313 of the CrPC, the court below has not post any specific question with regard to procuring of transfer certificate which is the subject matter herein. [25] It is contended by the counsel for the respondent that the document is found to be forged and fabricated one which has been placed before this court in order to help the accused person to say that he is juvenile. But the crucial point which falls for consideration is who is the author of the fabricated document for that issue neither specific question has been framed nor specific investigation has been made to that effect.
[26] In so far as the charges are concerned, they are not framed in terms of section 211 of the CrPC. The investigation also failed in recording the statement and producing it before the court as prosecution witnesses in this regard. The Forensic experts have not confirmed that the hand writing and the signatures on the samples and on the transfer certificate and the carbon copy all belong to the accused person herein. This court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt. When a specific complaint on an issue is pointed out by the high court in order to protect the dignity of the judiciary, this court feels that the investigation has not been conducted touching the main point for consideration with regard to who issued the fabricated certificate and the author of the certificate by the investigation agency nor by the trial court under Section 313 of the CrPC has framed specific question.
Page 19 of 19
[27] Since the prosecution has failed to make out the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, this court has no hesitation to say that the order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the lower appellate court and the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the trial court are set aside holding that no charge against the accused person as required under section 211 of the CrPC.
[28] Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE Dipak