Gurnam Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Present: Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for petitioner No.1-Gurnam Singh. Mr.G.S.Sidhu,Advocate for petitioner No.2-Harbans Singh. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ** Sabina, J. Petitioners were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Samrala for offences under Sections 420,466, 467,468,471,120-B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 25.5.2001. Vide order of even date the trial Court, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on each of the six counts. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed Criminal Revision No. 1965 of 2003 2 except with the modification in the substantive sentences of imprisonment by reducing it from two years to one year on each of the counts by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 5.9.2003. Hence, the present revision petition by petitioners. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that FIR in this case was recorded on the basis of letter Ex.PE written by Shri K.A.P.Sinha,SDM Samrala to the DSP Samrala, wherein it is alleged as under:- “I would like to bring to your kind notice that Sh.Lachhman Singh s/o Sh.Ram Chand of village Lubangarh the.Samrala died issueless on 2.2.95. The entry in respect of the death of the same person was entered in the Chowkidar's Register and subsequently in the register available in Police Station Machhiwara. Thereafter it was entered in the register available with the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana . In line with that the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana issued a death certificate vide his reference No. 1997 dt 13.3.95 mentioned the dates of death as 2.2.95. You may very kindly agree with me that if the person dies intestate especially when the deceased happens to be issueless so many persons with their nafarious designs come into picture to grab the property by some way or other. In this case also the same thing happened, one party got a will, an Criminal Revision No. 1965 of 2003 3 instrument of testamentary disposition executed and there upon got it registered fakely at Ludhaina mentioning the date of the execution to be 2.2.95. Thereafter the legatee of the will started claiming the right of inheritance on the basis of the same fakely registered will alleging that Sh.Lachhman Singh had actually died on 7.2.95 and he had himself executed the same will. Upon enquiring at the pot, so many persons have solemnly got their statements recorded stating that Sh.Lachhman Singh had actually died on 2.2.95. So and so they stated that they had gone to his house to console the bereaved family on 3.2.95/4.2.95. hence it becomes apparently clear that the party going to be benefitted with the same registered will had got the entire thing manipulated with the ill-motive to get the property transferred in their name. Further the dealing clerk in the office of the Civil Surgeon,Ludhiana has got two death certificate issued against the same person mentioning different dates i.e. vide No. 1200 dt. 12.2.95 and No.1997 dt 13.3.95. This has created serious litigation against the party who are genuine Class-I heirs in line. Moreover it should be an our effort to curb such practices especially when the criminal design by the persons accused is going to affect some body's rights to inherit the property. Here is this case Sh.Labh Singh Lambardar of village Bhaini Sahib and Criminal Revision No. 1965 of 2003 4 Sh.Harbans Singh son of Sh.Tulsa Singh of village Bhaini Sahib, who are the attesting witnesses of the registered will have falsely attested the same document before the Sub Registrar, Ludhiana at the time of the registration of the document, they have committed a criminal offence u/s 420 IPC whereas the dealing clerk in the office of the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana as well as the Chowkidar of the concerned village has changed the actual date of death in the register for registration of Death and Birth entries resulting into issuance of two death certificates for the same person. Such act on their part has made them liable to be prosecuted u/s 466 IPC. It would be worth pointing out here that Gurnam Singh the brother in law of Harbans Singh had appeared on the spot while the same was being enquired. From his demeanour it appeared that he has acted as catalyst in the entire game plan to hatch this criminal conspiracy. (Punishable U/s 120 B IPC)”. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, have not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 420,466,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC but have submitted that the sentences qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by them as has been done by this Court in Labh Singh vs. State of Punjab (in Criminal Revision No.1994 of 2003 decided on 2.3.2010). Learned counsel for petitioner No.1-Gurnam Singh has submitted that the said petitioner is blind from one eye and his wife is Criminal Revision No. 1965 of 2003 5 suffering from blood cancer and has been facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1996. Learned counsel for petitioner No.2-Harbans Singh has submitted that the petitioner is aged more than 70 years and has been facing criminal proceedings since the year 1996. Both the petitioners have undergone about three months of actual sentence. Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is a fit case where the sentences qua imprisonment are liable to be reduced and to enhance the fine. Hence, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 420,466,467,468, 471,120-B IPC is maintained. However, the sentences qua the imprisonment of the petitioners under the aforesaid Sections are reduced to already undergone by them. However, the fine imposed upon the petitioners by the Courts below of Rs.500/- on each of the counts is enhanced to Rs.2000/-. The enhanced amount of fine alongwith the fine imposed by the trial Court, if not paid already, be deposited by the petitioners with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. March 26, 2010 (Sabina) Judge Criminal Revision No. 1965 of 2003 6