Jharkhand High Court
Narendra Pratap Singh @ Nirmal Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. ... on 18 May, 2020
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 1177 of 2014
---
Narendra Pratap Singh @ Nirmal Kumar Singh, Son of late Raj Narayan Singh, resident of Hari Gopal Majumdar Road, Post office- Dhanbad, Police Station-Bank More, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party(s)
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vipula Divya, A.P.P.
---
C.A.V. On 28.02.2020 Delivered on 18 / 05/2020.
The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 29th September, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2014, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20th June, 2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 1800 of 2006, corresponding to T.R. No. 1829 of 2014, whereby the petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 419 IPC and R.I. for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been affirmed.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.01.2006 the informant gave written information to the police, which was instituted on 09.06.2006 alleging therein that the informant's uncle namely Raj Narayan Singh died on 17.06.2004 at Banaras and due to this his younger brother - Ashok Kumar 2 Singh and other family members had participated in his cremation. After the cremation and rituals, Ashok Kumar returned to Dhanbad and told the informant that Nirmal Kumar Singh, son of late Raj Narayan Singh was still alive and he had talked with him. The informant became astonished to see that in the invitation cards as well as in the Hindustan Daily News Paper dated 29.06.2004 there was no name of Nirmal Kumar Singh, as son of late Raj Narayan Singh rather a new name Narendra Pratap Singh, son of late Raj Narayan Singh was written. The informant-Uday Shankar Singh himself has seen Nirmal Kumar Singh in the Shradh Karm. As per the informant, Raj Narayan Singh had two wives, namely, Mahendra Devi and Tileswari Devi and one son Nagegshwar Prasad Singh from his first wife Mahendra Devi. He had five sons namely Dineshwar Pd. Singh, Vijay Kumar Singh, Nirmal Kumar Singh, Vijay Pratap Singh and Om Prakash Singh and two daughters namely Meera Devi and Sunaina Devi from his second wife-Tileshwar Devi, whose name has been mentioned in the voter list of 1988. The informant has annexed the copy of voter list. It has been further alleged that Nirmal Kumar Singh had been convicted in Sessions Trial Case No. 20 of 1980 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 24.03.1986 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1986 the said conviction was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and the bail of accused Nirmal Kumar Singh was rejected and he was directed to be taken into custody. Thereafter, accused Nirmal Kumar Singh filed an S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.08.1988, but he did not surrender in the 3 Court and the said S.L.P. was also dismissed in August, 1994. The informant has annexed the copy of orders. As per the informant, the sons and daughters of Raj Narayan Singh hatched criminal conspiracy and got Nirmal Kumar Singh declared dead in a boat accident in river Ganga on 06.08.1988 and dead body could not be found. The informant has annexed the photo copy of death certificate of Nirmal Singh. Thereafter accused petitioner along with his family members coming in criminal conspiracy kept the name as "Narendra Pratap Singh"
in place of 'Nirmal Kumar Singh'. Similarly, the name of wife of Nirmal Kumar Singh-Manisha Singh was converted to Manjula Devi and in 1995 voter list, her name has been shown as wife of Narendra Pratap Singh. The informant has annexed the photo copy of voter list of booth no.163. There is no name Manjula Devi as widow of Nirmal Singh in the voter list and Nirmal Singh is still alive and he is wandering in the name of Narendra Pratap Singh. Apart from that the accused and others withdrew the insurance amount of Nirmal Singh showing him dead and also received Rs.5000/- from the Government as accidental death and Rs.1,06,000/- from insurance company. As per the informant Nirmal Singh is evading the conviction imposed on him by the Court.
3. On the basis of the written statement of the informant, Bank More P.S. Case No. 393 of 2006 was registered by the police and after completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner along with other accused persons. The charges were framed against the petitioner along 4 with other co-accused and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During course of trial the prosecution has examined altogether 15 witnesses in support of the allegation leveled against the accused persons and also exhibited several documents. The learned trial court after meticulously dealing with the entire evidence, both oral and documentary convicted the petitioner.
5. The learned trial court has specifically held in para-35 of its judgment as under:
".......... So far as Passport, Pan Card, Driving License, Ration Card of Narendra Pratap Singh are concerned, it is pertinent to note here that these documents were prepared only after date of the alleged death of Nirmal Kumar Singh. So it shows that these documents were prepared in order to create a new identity of Nirmal Kumar Singh as Narendra Pratap Singh..........."
6. The learned trial court further held that exhibit-E and F, which is the Admission Register of Adarsh Madya Vidyalaya and transfer certificate respectively of Narendra Pratap Singh, appears to be manufactured for this purpose only as P.W.14 (Investigating Officer) proved the fact that there was no record of previous study available in the school. Moreover, the Admission Register was over written and the same was not proved by the maker of the document. The learned trial court further referred exhibit-H which is electoral roll of the year 2011, in which the name of Narendra Pratap Singh and Manjula Devi are 5 mentioned at sr. no. 309 and 313 respectively, but there is no photograph of the accused in the list. The learned trial court has referred to the statement of defense witness that after the death of Nirmal Kumar Singh his wife Manisha Singh married with Narendra Pratap Singh. The learned trial Court has categorically held that "....... it is beyond the prudence of reasonableness as to why Manisha Singh changed her name as Manjula Devi". Moreover, the documents were prepared in the year, 2011 i.e. after the alleged death of Nirmal Kumar Singh. So far as exhibit-U, the birth certificate of Narendra Pratap Singh is concerned it clearly reveals that the date of registration of birth is 26.02.1989 and the same is also prepared after the alleged death of Nirmal Kumar Singh.
7. After dealing with the entire evidences and hearing the argument adduced by the parties the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 419 and 420 of the I.P.C and sentenced him accordingly.
8. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad and the learned appellate Court concurred with the finding of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal in entirety.
9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that Narendra Pratap Singh (petitioner) and Nirmal Kumar Singh are two different persons and as per documents submitted by the defense it is clear that Narendra Pratap Singh has separate identity and the informant has lodged this case with some ulterior motive against all the family members of Narendra Pratap Singh with an intention to retaliate to S.T. Case No. 171 6 of 2005 pending against one Uday Kumar Singh and Ashok Kumar Singh and their accomplish. He further contended that these witnesses were interested witnesses and their testimonies are not reliable. He further submits that the entire finding which has been given by the learned court below is based upon presumption that said Nirmal Kumar Singh was convicted in S.T. Case No. 20 of 1980 and the said conviction is affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court against which S.L.P. was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court on 10.08.1988 after the death of Nirmal Kumar Singh on 06.08.1988. He further submits that it is well known practice that in criminal cases the appeal is not being filed by the convict rather through a parvikar and it is only the Vakalatnama which is being executed by the convict. The learned senior counsel tried to demolish the finding of the learned trial court by submitting that in the case of Nirmal Kumar Singh, the files were given to the advocate in Hon'ble Supreme Court much prior to 06.08.1988 and the same was filed on 10.08.1988 but only because of this fact there cannot be any presumption that on 10.08.1988 Nirmal Kumar Singh was alive. He further contended that the appellate court has put much emphasis upon the filing of criminal appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.08.1988 which was dismissed in the year, 1994 and the said finding is also perverse and based upon presumption. He further submits that there are majors contradictions among the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and even the informant failed to identify the petitioner in the dock. Relying upon the aforesaid submissions, he prayed that the petitioner may be acquitted in the instant case because 7 the learned trial Court while convicting the petitioner also directed to take the petitioner in judicial custody in connection with the instant case as well as S.T. Case No. 20 of 1980. He concluded his argument by submitting that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and the instant application deserves to be allowed.
10. Per contra, learned Addl. P.P. submits that Narendra Pratap Singh (Petitioner) and Nirmal Kumar Singh is one and the same person and the petitioner has changed his identity just to evade himself from the sentence of life imprisonment given in S.T. Case No. 20 of 1980 which was affirmed by the appellate Court. She further submits that the prosecution has proved the case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts and the instant application deserves to be dismissed.
11. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. P.P. for the State and perused the impugned judgments and the lower court records. After going through the materials available on record, it is clear that the Nirmal Kumar Singh was convicted in S.T. Case No. 20 of 1980 and was awarded life imprisonment against which he preferred an appeal before this Court which was also dismissed. Thereafter, he filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed in the year 1994 due to none filing of surrender certificate. The record further transpires that allegedly Nirmal Kumar Singh died on 06.08.1988 at Manihari Ghat, Katihar in a boat-mishap for which Rs. 5000/- was given by the Government of Bihar for accidental death and insurance amount to the tune of Rs.1,06,000/- was also withdrawn by the 8 family members. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the dead body was never found. From the record it also appears that the Passport, Pan Card, Ration Card, Birth Certificate and Driving license etc. were prepared by the petitioner only after the alleged death of Nirmal Kumar Singh. Not even a single document relied by the defense is of a prior date of the alleged death of Nirmal Kumar Singh. In view of these facts I find force in the finding given by the learned trial court that these documents were prepared in order to create a new identity of Nirmal Kumar Singh as Narendra Pratap Singh. At the cost of repetition, all these documents were prepared after the alleged death of Nirmal Kumar Singh. Even the birth certificate of the petitioner reveals that the date of registration of birth is 26.02.1989 i.e. after the alleged death of Nirmal Kumar Singh.
12. The learned appellate court also meticulously dealt with the evidences and after hearing the parties concurred with the finding given by the learned trial court and rightly came to the finding that after the boat-mishap, the said Nirmal Kumar Singh lived at Banaras by changing his name as Narendra Pratap Singh and the prosecution has been able to prove charge punishable under sections 419 and 420 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner.
13. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments passed by the courts below. Needless to say that revision jurisdiction is basically supervisory in nature and can be exercised only when there is glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error on the point of law resulting in flagrant 9 miscarriage of justice. In the instant case the learned senior counsel has failed to point out any perversity in the judgment or any error in the procedure so as to interfere by this court. As such, I refrain myself from interfering with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20th June, 2014 passed by the learned trial court and Judgment dated 29 th September, 2014 passed by the learned appellate court and the same are hereby, sustained. As a result the instant application is dismissed on contest.
14. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
15. Let this order be sent to the learned trial court.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/-