Someswar Borah vs State Of Assam

Heard Mr. A Baruah, learned amicus curiae appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D Das, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal

No.27(N)/2005. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order dated 13.09.2005 passed by

learned SDJM, Hojai in GR Case No.294/1990, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 468 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment

for 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/with default stipulation.

The criminal law was set into motion in the instant case through an FIR (Exhibit-4) lodged by one Guna Kanta Saikia, inspector of police alleging

therein, that the petitioner Someswar Borah along with one Dhiren Chandra Bora and Jahangir Shah, took money from Shi Mohan Chandra Bora

(PW-2) and Samsun Nehar (PW-6), promising to get their applications for job recommended by the Chief Minister and after few days they have

returned the said applications with purported recommendation of the then Chief Minister Prafulla Kumar Mahanta and accordingly, the said

applications were submitted before the D.I. of School. On scrutiny of the applications with the recommendations made therein, the concerned

officials entertained suspicion as to the authenticity of such recommendation and the FIR was lodged. On the basis of the said FIR, investigation

commenced. In course of investigation the specimen signature of the accused persons were obtained and sent for forensic examination. On

completion of investigation charge-sheet was laid against the present petitioner and one Jahangir Shah under Section 468/471 IPC. The attendance of

the co-accused Jahangir Shah could not be procured and he was declared absconder. Eventually trial proceeded against accused petitioner Someswar

Borah.

In course of trial charge was framed against the petitioner under Section 468/471 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 9

(nine) witnesses to establish the charge and on appreciation of evidence learned SDJM acquitted the accused/petitioner of the charge under Section

471 IPC and convicted him under Section 468 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, which was transferred

to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge for disposal. By the impugned judgment, learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and

confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.Â

Aggrieve by the impugned judgment and order, the petitioner preferred the instant revision petition.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned amicus curiae and learned Addl. PP.

The prosecution case basically hinges on the oral testimony of PW-1, PW2, PW-4 PW-6 & PW-10 as well as the documentary evidence and as

such, it will be appropriate to go through the evidence of all those vital witnesses.

PW-1, husband of Samsun Nehar (PW-6) deposed, that the accused Jahangir Shah once enquired, whether the service of his wife was made

permanent or not. Jahangir also advised him to file an application and promised to get the application recommended by the Chief Minister, as he

belongs to the ruling political party. He also took Rs.200/- for expenses. Accordingly, PW-1 handed over an application for the post of school

teacher to Jahangir. Jahangir asked him to collect the application from the present petitioner Someswar Bora, after recommendation of the Chief

Minister. After 3-4 days, the petitioner Someswar Bora returned him the application, containing the purported recommendation of the Chief Minister

addressed to the Deputy Inspector of Schools. According to him, Someswar Bora told that it was Jahangir Shah, who got the applications

recommended by the Chief Minister.

Accordingly, he submitted the said application to the D.I. of School.

PW-2 Mohan Chandra Bora stated that he was working in a temporary post. Accused Jahangir Shah told him, that he could get his application for

making the job permanent, recommended by the chief Minister and accordingly, he handed over an application to Jahangir Shah with Rs.500/- for

expenses. Said Jahangir Shah told him that it was not possible for him, to meet him frequently and asked him to collect the application from

Someswar Bora. He also introduced him with Someswar Bora. Later on Someswar Bora (petitioner) returned him the application purportedly

recommended by the Chief Minister and addressed to the D.I of School. He (PW-2) handed over the said application to D.I. Office and after

(four) months police went to enquire about the application.

PW-4, the D.I. of School (retired) stated that when the application for appointment received from the candidates were being examined in the

meeting of the Advisory Board, the applications, filed one by Mustt. Samsun Nahar and Shri Mohan Chandra Bora were found recommended by the

then Chief Minister Prafulla Kumar Mahanta. Having entertained doubt about the genuineness of such recommendation, as per decision of the

Advisory Board, both the applications were sent to the Office of the Chief Minister.

PW-6 deposed that she was working in a temporary post in the L.P. School and Someswar Bora told her, that he can get her application for

confirmation in the post of teacher, recommended by the Chief Minister and asked her to submit an application. On the advice of the said

Someswar Bora, she wrote an application and handed over it to him with Rs.200/- as travelling expense, for going to Guwahati. Later on, said

Someswar Bora got the application recommended from the Chief Minister and handed over to her husband (PW-1) which was submitted to the D.I.

of School.

The application filed by Samsun Nehar and Mohan Ch. Bora were proved as material Exhibit-1 & Exhibit-2, which were sent for forensic

examination along with the specimen handwriting of the present petitioner as well as all the other coaccused Jahangir Shah. The specimen handwriting

sent to forensic expert were proved as Exhibit-6 & Exhibit-7. After examining all the questioned documents being the application with purported

recommendation of the Chief Minister, along with specimen handwriting, the PW-10, Senior Scientific Expert submitted report. The forensic expert

PW-10 deposing in Court on oath proved the report, Exhibit-6 & Exhibit-7. The oral testimony of the PW-10 and the Exhibit-6 report clearly

demonstrated that the purported recommendation of the Chief Minister in material Exhibit-1 & rather, Exhibit-2 were written by the petitioner

Someswar Bora. Thus, the forensic report clearly established that the purported recommendations on the application were forged by the petitioner

Someswar Bora. The oral testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 & PW-6 coupled with the testimony of PW-10, Forensic expert, and the documentary

evidence Exhibit-6, the FSL report leaves no room of doubt, that it was none but Someswar Bora, who forged the materials Exhibit-1 & material

Exhibit-2.

On the basis of the above evidence, learned trial Court convicted the present petitioner having found the charge under Section 468 IPC against him

established beyond reasonable doubt and awarded sentence. Learned appellate Court also on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction

and sentence of the petitioner.

Apparently the learned trial Court and the Appellate Court on appreciation of the evidence reached the concurrent finding that the charge against

the petitioner under Section 468 IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt, and such finding does not appear to have suffered from any irregularity or

illegality requiring interference by this revisional Court. Therefore, I find this revision is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within 2 (two) months and serve out the sentence.

Appreciating the assistance rendered by Mr. A Baruah, learned Amicus Curiae, I hereby provide that he will be entitled to fees as Legal Aid

Counsel, as per the norms fixed by the Legal Services Authority Regulation. Upon production of a copy of this judgment, Guwahati High Court Legal

Services Committee, shall pay the fee to Mr. A Baruah.

Send down the LCR.