Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 468, 471 in State vs Om Prakash ("Convicted") Page 1 Of 14 on 9 April, 2012Matching Fragments
______________________________________________________________ FIR No.347/2000: U/s 193/468/471/420 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 09.04.2012 A. BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
The facts of the case as borne out from the record are that on the date of incident Shri Narinder Kumar, the then Ld.MM had been looking after the judicial work in respect of cases of Police Station Kashmere Gate. Case FIR No.294/2000, U/s 379/411 IPC, PS Kashmere Gate, titled as, "State V/s Sandhya @ Asha" was pending trial in his court on 06.09.2000, on which date, pursuant to bail order passed in respect of that accused, Bail Bond was furnished by surety Shri Surender Singh S/o Shri Bhoop Singh, interalia swearing an affidavit in support of Surety Bond and furnishing original Ration Card bearing No.357646 with his photograph, Registration Certificate of vehicle bearing No.DLIV/0911 and Permit No.CE15628/97 in respect thereof. The Ld.MM issued directions to SHO, PS Kashmere Gate for verification of the aforesaid documents. The verification report dated 08.09.2000 was received by him wherein it was communicated in his court by HC Devender Singh that the Ration Card and Registration Certificate annexed with the Bail Bond were forged documents. Thereafter, the said surety did not appear in the court of Ld.MM. As such, the learned MM on 09.09.2000 made a complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C in this court. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint of the Ld.MM, this court issued directions to SHO, PS Subzi Mandi to register FIR in the matter and as such, FIR in this case came to be registered and matter was investigated. During the course of investigation and FIR No.347/2000: U/s 193/468/471/420 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 09.04.2012 on the basis of identification of accused through his photograph lying affixed on the Ration Card in question, he was arrested on 04.01.2001, his specimen handwriting was taken and the same alongwith the handwriting appearing on the Bail Bond and Ration Card were sent for CFSL examination, report thereupon was obtained and after completion of investigation, accused stood chargesheeted for offences punishable U/s 193/468/471/420 IPC.
FIR No.347/2000: U/s 193/468/471/420 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 09.04.2012
16. Per contra, learned APP has very vehemently argued that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses have remained unrebutted and as such admitted. It is further argued that the arguments of learned defence counsel are contrary to the material on record, particularly the stand taken by the accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he categorically admitted having appeared as fake surety in the assumed name of Shri Surender Singh in the court of PW6. It is next contended that report Ex.PW4/D of HC Devender Kumar, submitted in the court of PW6 before filing of complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C clearly indicates that the Ration Card (Ex.PW6/C) and Registration Certificate (Ex.PW6/D) were false and fabricated documents. The reports received from the concerned departments in respect of aforesaid documents, i.e Ex.PW4/D1 and Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively clearly demonstrate that the said documents are forged. It is next contended that the accused has not denied his photograph on Ex.PW6/C and as such, in view of the unrebutted testimony of PW6, his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C and the documents Ex.PW4/B1, Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B, there is conclusive evidence that it was accused who had stood "fake surety" in the court of PW6 and had filed false affidavit and had further filed forged documents. In the end, it is contended that through the FSL report (Ex.C1), it has been corroborated that the handwriting appearing on Bail Bond (Q2), the affidavit (Q3 and Q4) and Ration Card (Q1) duly matched with the specimen handwriting of accused (S1 to S3) and as such, it stands conclusively proved that accused had not only impersonated as Surender Singh in the court of FIR No.347/2000: U/s 193/468/471/420 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 09.04.2012 PW6, but had also sworn false affidavit and used false documents as genuine and as such, he is liable to be convicted for offence punishable U/s 193/199/200/205/471 IPC.
24. Section 215 allows criminal Court to ignore any error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, if the accused was not, in fact, misled by such error or omission in framing the FIR No.347/2000: U/s 193/468/471/420 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 09.04.2012 charge and it has not occasioned a failure of justice. See Section 215 Cr.P.C, which reads :
xxxxx (Underlining emphasized)
21. If the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is applied to the facts of the present case, then it would be apparent that the accused was aware about the case against him and had taken his defence accordingly. He had the knowledge that he had sworn false affidavit in judicial proceedings, had appeared in assumed character in the court for standing "fake surety", had filed false and fabricated documents and as such no prejudice has been caused to him by not framing specific charges against him for offences punishable U/s 199/200/205/471 IPC. From the material on record, the prosecution has FIR No.347/2000: U/s 193/468/471/420 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 09.04.2012 proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had given false evidence before a court which by law was receivable as evidence. He had sworn false declaration, knowing it fully well that same was false. Further, he appeared in an assumed character before the court to give the aforesaid false declaration and used forged documents as genuine. Consequently, accused Om Prakash S/o Shri Panna Lal stands convicted for offences punishable U/s 193/199/200/205/471 IPC.