Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Mehar Singh And Another on 30 May, 2019
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 599 of 2008 .
Reserved on: 24th April, 2019.
Date of Decision: 30th May, 2019.
State of H.P. .....Appellant.
Versus
Mehar Singh and another
Coram
The Hon'ble
Mr.
Justice
....Respondents.
Sureshwar Thakur,
Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellants: Mr. Hemant Vaid, Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Addl. Advocate Generals with Mr. Y.S. Thakur, and, Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Dy. A. Gs.
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate in Cr. Appeal No. 599 of 2008 and Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate in Cr.
A. No. 600 of 2008.
_______________________________________________________ Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
The extant appeal, stand, directed against the impugned verdict, recorded, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, upon, Cr. Appeal no.
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2019 21:57:59 :::HCHP 27 of 2005, wherethrough, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, recorded findings of acquittal, upon, the accused.
.
2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that complainant Jhanu came to know that his share in land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 1 min/39, measuring 11-13-09 bighas, situated in muhal DPF, Sheel/468, Tehsil Karsog, was mortgaged by someone by preparing forged documents with HS.P. State Cooperative Agriculture and |Rural Development Bank Limited, Karsog branch, and, raised loan for Rs.2,70,000 from the said bank. Accused Mehar Singh, Devi Singh and Jhophu had moved forged application in the name of complainant Jhanu and accused Jhophu to the afore bank for loan to purchase tractor and they received cheque No.721777 of 17.12.1999 for Rs.2,35,000/- in favour of Yamuna Syndicate Limited near Court Mandi. Accused Mehar Singh and Devi Singh had signed the receipt on the cheque as witnesses and they affixed forged thumb impression of Jhanu on the documents, whereas, the complainant Jhanu neither moved the application for ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2019 21:57:59 :::HCHP 3 loan to the said bank nor he received the loan through cheque for purchasing tractor. The accused persons had forged documents in the name of complainant .
Jhanu and obtained loan of Rs.2,70,000/- from purchasing tractor. On 10.1.2000, the complainant Jhanu filed the complaint under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471/34 IPC against accused Mehar Singh, Devi Singh and Jhophu before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog.
r The application was forwarded by the learned court to the SHO of police station Karsog for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, FIR against the accused persons was registered at the police station concerned, and, the police carried out the investigations in the case.
3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court.
4. The accused/respondents herein stood charged by the learned trial Court, for, theirs ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2019 21:57:59 :::HCHP 4 committing offences hence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the .
prosecution examined 11 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stood recorded, by the learned trial Court, wherein, they claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication in the case.
5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction upon the accused/respondents herein, for theirs, committing offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. In appeal preferred therefrom, by the accused/respondents herein, before the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge concerned, the latter reversed the apposite findings of conviction, and, consequent therewith imposition, of, sentences, by the learned trial Court, and, hence acquitted the accused, of, the afore charged offences.
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2019 21:57:59 :::HCHP 56. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Una. The learned Addl. Advocate .
General for the State has concertedly, and, vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una, rather standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by him, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court, in, the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of conviction.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel(s) appearing, for the accused/respondents, have, with considerable force, and, vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge concerned, rather standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by him, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication.
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2019 21:57:59 :::HCHP 68. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record.
.
9. The learned trial Court had recorded findings of conviction, upon, the accused/respondents, herein for a charge framed, under, Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, and, consequent therewith sentences, were, also imposed, upon, the accused. The complainant Jhanu reared allegations, qua, a forged mortgage deed, being executed by the accused, and, reiteratedly thereon his forged thumb impressions being made. In consequence thereto, the accused secured, a, loan, borne in a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-, from, the bank concerned, and, consequently, wrongful loss stood encumbered upon the complainant, and, wrongful gain stood secured by the accused. The most significant, and, crucial document(s), for determining the afore factum, are, the mortgage deed, borne in Ex.PW3/B, and, the joint application form, borne in Ex.PW3/C. The mortgage deed, borne in Ex.PW3/B, carries thereon, the purported forged/ disputed thumb ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2019 21:57:59 :::HCHP 7 impression, of, the complainant. However, Neela Dass Negi, Branch Manager of the Bank concerned, from whom, the relevant borrowings were made, stepped .
into the witness box as PW-3, and, therein testified qua the complainant making a complaint to him qua his, taking to append his signature on all documents, and, his not taking to append his thumb impressions, upon, any document. He has further testified, that, in the complaint made to him by afore Jhanu, he had contested, the, authenticity of his thumb impression borne, upon, Ex.PW3/B. However, the afore testification of PW-3 is not sufficient to constrain, a conclusion that hence the charged offences, being invincibly, hence, proven by the prosecution, (a) unless the best evidence comprised in the report of the FSL concerned , respectively borne in Ex.Px, and, in Py also lends corroboration thereto. A perusal of the afore reports makes imminent disclosure(s), that, the admitted signatures bearing marks S-9 to S-12, belonging, to Jhanu Ram, rather not bearing compatibility, with, the disputed signatures hence bearing mark Q-5. Further thereonwards, it is voiced ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2019 21:57:59 :::HCHP 8 therein, that, the afore signatures, being scribed by the accused. The afore best documentary evidence, does obviously, lend corroboration tot he testification .
of PW-3, and, when the report of the Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, borne in Ex.Py, upon, the latter making, a, comparison of the admitted thumb impression, of, complainant Jhanu Ram, vis-a-vis, the disputed thumb impression of Jhanu Ram, and, also, upon, its r making, a, comparison, inter se, the admitted, thumb impression of the accused, vis-a-vis, the disputed thumb impression, borne in Ex.PW3/B, hence, thereafter therein makes a firm opinion, that, the apposite comparison(s), rather unraveling qua the thumb impression borne on Ex.PW3/B, not tallying with the thumb impression of Jhanu Ram, rather theirs tallying with the thumb impression(s) of Jhophu Ram, thereupon, the afore evidence clinches, the, charge framed against the accused.
10. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge concerned, has not appraised, the entire evidence on record in a wholesome, and, ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2019 21:57:59 :::HCHP 9 harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material on record by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned, suffers, from a gross perversity or .
absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane evidence on record.
12. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed, and, the common verdict impugned, before this Court by the State, and, recorded by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge concerned, upon, Cr. Appeal No. 7 of 2005, is set aside, whereas, the verdict recorded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, upon, Police Challan No.60-II of 2002, is, affirmed and maintained. The learned trial Court is directed to forthwith execute the sentences imposed upon the respondents/accused. Records be sent back forthwith.
(Sureshwar Thakur) 30 th May, 2019. Judge.
(jai) ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2019 21:57:59 :::HCHP