Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. It is argued that accused Gopal Goyal Kanda is a religious person. When deceased victim joined MDLR it started earning profit so accused persons finding her a lucky employee wanted that she should remain with MDLR Group. There was no intention of accused persons that deceased victim should commit suicide. In the statement of Shirish Thorat of Emirates Airlines, he has stated that accused Gopal Goyal asked him not to cause any loss to deceased victim as she was child and had come after raising dispute with MDLR so the intention was only that deceased victim should rejoin MDLR. It is argued that before a document can be said to be forged document, the commission of forgery should be proved. There is difference between forged document and a document having false statement. No dishonest or fraudulent intention of accused persons is shown by the State Vs Gopal Goyal Kanda and others prosecution for the purpose of framing charges u/S 463 or its aggravated forms. The affidavits relied upon by prosecution are rough drafts. These do not come within the definition of document u/S 29 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is argued that accused Gopal Goyal has purchased flat in the name of his daughter. The affidavit from the seller Anjuna Nagpal was not yet signed regarding use of the flat so this affidavit does not attract any offence of Section 463 IPC or its aggravated forms.

31. On the question of bar of Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C raised on behalf of accused persons, it is argued that since the alleged forgery regarding extradition documents and connected documents was not conducted after the documents were filed in the court, the said bar u/S 195 (1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C is not attracted. Reliance is placed upon Iqbal Singh Marwah & anr Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & anr 2005 II AD (Cr.) S.C. 12.

State Vs Gopal Goyal Kanda and others

32. On the question of whether Sub Section (1) of Sub Section (2) of Section 120-B IPC is attracted, the argument is that the words "rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards" should be interpreted that besides the offences punishable with the capital punishment, life imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment or simple imprisonment of two years and above where the accused persons indulged in conspiracy of such offences, Sub Section (1) of Section 120-B IPC shall apply. Sub Section (2) according to Ld SPP would be attracted only in cases in which simple imprisonment upto 2 years is provided as punishment. It is argued that out of 511 Sections of Indian Penal Code, only 12 Sections speak about rigorous imprisonment which are S.194, S.376, S.376A, S.376C, S.382, S.392, S.393, S.397, S.398, S.399, S.401 and S.402, therefore, it cannot be said that scope of the important provision of conspiracy u/S 120-B IPC is limited to the offences punishable with death penalty, life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment of two years and above in aforesaid twelve Sections of IPC.

51. Ld Special Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has argued that confessional statement of accused Chanshivroop is made before Ld State Vs Gopal Goyal Kanda and others Metropolitan Magistrate and is a voluntary confessional statement as certified by Ld Metropolitan Magistrate so it should be taken into account for the purpose of allegation of conspiracy, forgery of documents and framing of relevant charges against accused persons on these counts. It is argued that Hardeep Singh's case (Supra) relied upon by Ld counsel for accused is not applicable as it deals with Section 15 TADA. There is difference between Section 15 TADA and Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act. It is argued that Section 30 of Evidence Act comes amongst Sections 6 to 55 of Indian Evidence Act which deal with relevancy of evidence. It is argued that accused Chanshivroop is absconding now-a-days and he can be brought to face trial with the present two accused persons so his confessional statement can be taken into account by this court for the purpose of charges. It is argued that the probative value of confession of co-accused cannot be seen at the stage of charge.

State Vs Gopal Goyal Kanda and others

61. Reliance is also placed upon Ram Narayan Popli Vs CBI 2003 SCC (Cri.) 869 wherein following observations were made:-

"In order to constitute an offence of forgery the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently. But dishonest or fraudulent are not tautological. Fraudulent does not imply the deprivation of property or an element of injury. In order to be fraudulent, there must be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the other. Every forgery postulates a false document either in whole or in part, however small."