Delhi District Court
Additional Sessions JudgeIi vs The State on 13 September, 2010
1 32/10
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGEII, NORTH DISTRICT :
DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 32/10
Computer ID No. 02401R0245642001
Date of Filing : 18.08.2010
Puran Singh
s/o Shri Kacheru Mal
r/o H.No. K109, Gali no. 3,
Gautam Vihar,
31/2, Pushta,
Trans Yamuna,
Delhi - 110 053. ........... Appellant
VERSUS
The State ........... Respondent
APPEARANCE:
Ms. Seema Gupta, Adv. for the accused/appellant.
Mr. Maqsood Ahmed, APP for the State/Respondent.
JUDGMENT :
1. This judgment shall decide a criminal appeal filed as per 2 32/10 Section 374 Cr.P.C. against judgment on conviction u/s 193 IPC and 417/419/468/471 IPC dt. 17.7.10 followed by Order on Sentence dt. 20.7.10 pased by Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja, Ld. CMM Tis Hazari Courts (as she was then).
2. In a nutshell, case of the prosecution is that complaint was lodged by Sh. Ashwani Sarpal (the then Ld. M.M., Delhi) (PW2) to the effect that in case bearing FIR no. 532/99 u/s 25 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali, the accused Ajay Dass was admitted to bail and one Ved Prakash @ Puran Singh stood as his surety who produced his ration card, FDR/NSC at the time of consideration of Surety Bond and original NSC and photocopies of the ration card were retained on record. It appears that during the proceedings, the accused failed to appear and NBWs were ordered to be issued against him besides Notice u/s 446 Cr.P.C. against his surety Ved Prakash. It was then revealed that NSC filed by the surety was a forged one and the address of the surety Ved Prakash was found wrong besides the fact that his real name was revealed to be Puran Singh. The accused was arrested and arraigned for trial under various provisions of IPC.
3. Suffice to state that the prosecution examined nine witnesses. After putting the incriminating evidence asper Section 313 Cr.P.C. to the accused/appellant and on consideration of 3 32/10 evidence brought on record, Ld. CMM found that accused/appellant guilty of having committed offences u/s 193 IPC and 417, 419, 4698 and 471 IPC. The said order is followed by an order on sentence whereby u/s 193 and 419 IPC the accused has been sentenced to undergo SI for a period of three years ; one year RI u/s 417 IPC besides SI for 3½ years u/s 468 and 471 IPC. In total fine of Rs.7,000/ has been imposed under different offences. The fine has since been paid by the accused/appellant.
4. In the present appeal the impugned judgment on conviction is assailed interalia on the ground that there was no official order for handing over the original surety bond, NSC and copies of ration card to PW9 IO SI Ramesh Chand by the Court ; that the Ld. CMM failed to consider that PW5 Nand Kishor, Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. A.K. Sarpal, M.M., Delhi stated that no copy of the ration card was supplied to the IO ; that there was material contradictions in regard to the place and time of arrest of the accused/appellant ; that accused/appellant was arrested on 29.9.99 while the present FIR was lodged in the year 2001 ; that Sh. D.D. Goel who had prepared the FSL Report was not examined by the Court. The order on sentence is also assailed on th ground that it is very harsh and oppressive.
5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and I have 4 32/10 also heard the Ld. APP for the State. I have also perused the record including the Trial Court Record.
6. At the outset I find that the impugned judgment is not assailable on facts and law and the impugned judgment is passed on sound legal reasoning. The prosecution has been able to bring on record the following evidence beyond reasonable doubt against the accused :
I. The accused/appellant signed the bail bond/surety bond, Form no. 45 Ex. PW2/C at point Q2 and Q3 ;
II. The specimen signatures of the accused/appellant Ex. PW9/C and PW9/D which are given mark S1 and S2 respectively were taken and the same were sent to FSL at Hyderabad ;
III.PW6 S.M. Gupta, Government Examiner and Handwriting Expert categorically deposed that as per his report Ex. PW6/B, the signatures at Q2, Q3, S1 and S2 were written by the same person and there is nothing in the crossexamination of PW6 that his opinion can be faulted upon ;
IV.It is in evidence that original NSC which was retained Ex. PW2/B was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW5/C and the same was sent for verification from the concerned Post Office and PW7 B.D. Patel, ExPostmaster, Branch Kripco Nagar, District Surat, Gujarat 5 32/10 gave report Ex. PW7/A to the effect that the NSC Certificate bearing no. 11D12757 was issued jointly in the names of D.K. Paul and Ms. Sulekha Paul and one in the name of Ved Prakash @ Puran Singh was bogus and fabricated document; V.The said documents were put to the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. to which he gave an evasive reply to the effect that it was a matter of record;
VI.The complaint by PW2 Sh. Ashwani Sarpal, the then Ld. M.M. is uncontroverted and unrebutted.
7. From the said evidence, the prosecution has been successful to bring home that it was the accused/appellant who impersonated as one Ved Prakash and stood surety for the accused Ajay Dass in FIR no. 532/99 of P.S. Kotwali in relation to an offence u/s 25 Arms Act ; that it was the accused who furnished the surety bond besides forged NSC Certificate ex. PW5/A.
8. The pleas raises by the appellant in the present appeal has been dealt with by the Ld. CMM. At the cost of repetition, the observations made by the Ld. M.M. are apt that mere fact that there was an irregularity in handing over the original documents to the IO i.e. PW9 SI Rmesh Chand, in as much as there was no formal direction by the Court concerned, is hardly of any 6 32/10 consequence and had not prejudiced the accused/appellant in any manner. Similarly, the discrepancy in the time of arrest of the accused again is not made out in as much as evidence of PW4 Const. Suraj Prakash was not challenged that he arrested the accused on 29.9.99. A mere fact that no independent witnesses were joined at the time of his arrest is hardly of any consequence. Lastly, the nonexamination of Sh. D.D. Goel has also not prejudiced the accused/appellant in as much as PW6 S.M. Gupta was coauthor of the FSL/Handwriting Report Ex. PW6/A which has been duly proved on the record.
9. In the said view of the discussion, it is clearly made out that the accused gave false evidence in the Court and thereby committed an offence u/s 193 IPC The accused committed cheating by producing false/forged document knowing it to be not genuine and thus committed an offence u/s 417, 468 and 471 IPC. The accused with dishonest intention also impersonated himself as some other person namely Ved Prakash which he was not. At this stage, it has been urged by Ms. Seema Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the accused/appellant that accused is about 50 years of age and he is the sole bread earner of his family comprising of two children. It is urged that accused/appellant was in judicial custody from 4.5.01 to 21.7.01, thereafter from 6.3.07 to 20.9.07 and now he is 7 32/10 in J/C since 17.7.10. It is therefore, urged that a lenient view may be taken in favour of the accused/appellant.
10. As regard the quantum of sentence, Ld. CMM has rightly observed that the offence committed by the accused/appellant is an extremely grave one and since he has played fraud on the Court, he does not deserve any leniency. At the same time, having regard to the fact that appellant hails from a poor economic strata of the Society and the period already undergone by him in J/C must have impacted his reformation not to indulge in this type of crime or for that matter any other crime, in the interest of justice I firmly believe that an alteration/modification be done in regard to the quantum of sentence.
11. Hence the sentence u/s 417 IPC is maintained providing for one year RI in addition to payment of fine of rs.1000/ in default of payment of fine, the appellant to undergo SI for 15 days. So far as offence u/s 193, 419, 468 and 471 IPC are concerned, the sentence is reduced to a period of 18 months besides the fine which has already been deposited. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the accused/appellant shall also be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
12. A copy of this Judgment be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance. Trial court record be 8 32/10 sent back alongwith a copy of this Judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DHARMESH SHARMA) TODAY: ON 13.9.2010. ASJII, NORTH/DELHI. 9 32/10 CA No. 32/10 13.9.2010. Pr. Ms. Seema Gupta, Adv. for the accused/appellant.
Mr. Maqsood Ahmed, APP for the State/Respondent. Vide separate detailed judgment, the appeal is dismissed and the sentence is modified as under :
Sentence u/s 417 IPC is maintained providing for one year RI in addition to payment of fine of rs.1000/ in default of payment of fine, the appellant to undergo SI for 15 days. So far as offence u/s 193, 419, 468 and 471 IPC are concerned, the sentence is reduced to a period of 18 months besides the fine which has already been deposited. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the accused/appellant shall also be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
A copy of this Judgment be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance. Trial court record be sent back alongwith a copy of this Judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) ASJII, NORTH/DELHI.