Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

At this juncture, it is also relevant to mention here that PW­5 Sh. Prem Pal Singh Officiating Principal of Chunni Lal Intermediate College, Bullandsher, (UP) (who is the prosecution witness examined in this case), has not supported the prosecution case at all. He has categorically deposed before the Court that as per record available in the said college, the date of birth of accused is 23.12.60. Although, the prosecution made futile attempt to challenge the testimony of said witness by putting suggestion during his cross examination that date of birth has not been mentioned in figure in the column of date of birth in S.R Register but the said suggestion has been completely denied by the said witness who has testified that S.R Register containing relevant entry in respect of accused showing his date of birth as 23.12.60, is kept in safe custody and also that the date of birth mentioned therein is not tempered one. The Court does not find any reason as to why the testimony of PW­5 should be discarded and as to why the copy of S.R record Ex PW5/B proved by said witness, should not be taken into consideration. The prosecution has not been able to bring on record any material so as to disbelieve the testimony of PW­5 or to ignore the copy of S.R record Ex PW5/B. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the Court is of the considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove on record that matriculation certificate Ex PW6/A of accused is forged or false document. Thus, the offence U/s 466 IPC could not be proved beyond shadow of doubt. Once it is held that prosecution has failed to prove the offence U/s 466 IPC, it necessarily follows that the other two offences i.e offence U/s 420 read with Section 471 IPC also could not be proved as in order to prove said two offences, it was pre requisite for the prosecution to show that accused had forged his matriculation certificate Ex PW6/A and used the same in any Government Department. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that matriculation certificate Ex PW6/A is forged one, there is no question of accused inducing the police department to provide him employment on the post of Constable on the basis of forged document or commission of the offence of cheating punishable U/s 420 IPC. Consequently, the accused Gyanender Singh stands acquitted. His personal bond stands cancelled. However, his surety bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment. Original documents if any of accused be returned after cancellation of endorsement if any. File be consigned to Record Room.