State of Himachal Pradesh vs Charanjeet Singh

Justice Sanjay Karol, J.—For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 20.9.1995 accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 28.9.2000, passed by the ld. Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (4), Shimla, H.P. in Cr. Case No. 183/2 of 1999/96, titled as State of H.P. versus Charanjeet Singh, accused stands acquitted of the charged offences. It is the case of prosecution that on 20.9.1995 at about 5.15 p.m., SI-Dhani Ram, Constable Beli Ram, HC-Desh Raj (PW-2), HC-Shamsher Singh and HC-Nirmal Dass were on traffic checking duty at Khalini Chowk. They noticed a vehicle (maruti car) bearing registration number HIS-3133 crossing the check post. The vehicle was stopped and the driver, who disclosed his name as Charanjeet Singh (accused) was asked to show his licence and documents of the car. Driving licence was in the name of Charanjeet Singh but registration certificate and the insurance documents were in the name of Pankaj Hotel, Circular Road, New Land, Shimla. There were cuttings on the registration certificate and the insurance documents. Also insurance pertained to maruti van and the registration certificate had an impression of a rubber stamp of R.L.A. Shimla. Since accused could not furnish sufficient explanation with regard to the discrepancies found in the documents, a complaint was lodged and rukka (Ext. PW 6/A) sent to Police Station, East Shimla, where F.I.R. No. 156/95 dated 20.9.1995 (Ext. PW 6/B) was registered. The matter was investigated by ASI-Gurdip Singh (PW-10) and Inspector Dhani Ram (PW-11). Investigation revealed that the vehicle in question actually belonged to Sh. Ashok Kumar (PW-7) who had lodged a report with regard to missing of his vehicle. The documents pertained to vehicle No. HIS-3133 which was owned by Sh. Ramesh Arora (PW-1). During police remand accused made confessional statement (Ext. PW 2/A) disclosing the fact that he had hidden a rubber stamp (Ext. P1) and a number plate bearing number PB-08A-8307 at his village in the neighbouring State which he could get recovered. Consequently on his behest recovery was effected by the police. Report of the hand writing expert was obtained by the police after the documents and specimen signature of the accused and impression of the stamp was sent for analysis. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

The accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 471, 468, 467 and 411 IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was also recorded in which he took up a defence of false implication.

Appreciating the material on record, Court below acquitted the accused of all the charged offences, hence the present appeal.

We have heard Sh. R. K. Sharma, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General duly assisted by Sh. J. S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the appellant-State as also Sh. Paras Dogra, learned counsel on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Having minutely examined the record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is well reasoned and is based on complete and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity in the same.

Out of eleven witnesses examined by the prosecution we find that independent witnesses Sh. Som Nath (PW-3), Sh. Kashmiri lal (PW-9) and Sh. Kamal Kumar (PW-8) have not supported the prosecution. In spite of their extensive cross examination by the Learned Public Prosecutor nothing fruitful could be elucidated from their testimony. These persons are witnesses to the disclosure statement (Ext. PW 2/A) and recovery memos (Ext. PW 9/A and 9/B).

We find that evidence of the expert does not remotely link the accused to the alleged crime. There is nothing on record to show that cuttings on the document i.e. the registration certificate and the insurance policy were actually in the hand of the accused. Prosecution has also not been able to show that impression of the stamp on the registration certificate is actually not that of R.L.A. Shimla. None from the said office has been examined to establish that the stamp recovered by the police did not belong to the said office.

Testimony of the police officials in this case, in our considered view, does not inspire confidence. On the basis of mere suspicion of forgery, accused was arrested. Police had no information, prior to his arrest, that vehicle belonging to PW-7 was actually stolen. We find that there is inherent and major contradiction in this regard in the statements of Sh. Ashok Kumar (PW-7), Sh. Gurdeep Singh (PW-10) and Sh. Dhani Ram (PW-11). Prosecution has failed to establish by leading clear cogent and convincing material that vehicle allegedly belonging to PW-7 was stolen and it was the very same vehicle with respect to which report was lodged by the owner.

We further find that testimony of Sh. Ramesh Arora (PW-1) is not of much significance, so as to establish the guilt of the accused.

The accused is alleged to have made a disclosure statement (Ext. PW 2/A) on 22.9.1995. Now there is evidence on record that on the very same day, accused was under judicial remand and made to appear before the Court in relation to another offence and Court proceedings for the same continued throughout the day. According to Desh Raj (PW-2) disclosure statement was made in the police station. He does not disclose the timings. Police has not been able to show the time at which the disclosure statement was recorded. Now this only renders the prosecution case to be doubtful more particularly when the independent witness has not supported the prosecution. According to Sh. Gurdeep Singh (PW-10), on 22.9.1995 the accused was in his custody in relation to another offence. Now if this were so then obviously statement of Inspector Dhani Ram (PW-11) to the effect that the accused was with him throughout the day stands contradicted. Thus the disclosure statement cannot be said to have been proved. We are of the view that prosecution ought to have examined other independent witnesses to the recovery memos, more so for the reason that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case. We also find that number plates have not been produced in the Court.

Consequently it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence to establish the fact that the accused had used fraudulent driving licence, registration certificate and insurance pertaining to vehicle No. HIS-3133, as a genuine document or that the accused had forged the said documents with the purpose of cheating or that accused forged valuable security and dishonestly received and retained stolen vehicle. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., it cannot be said that the Court below incorrectly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. Present appeal is thus dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.