Kanshi Ram & Anr. v. State of Haryana

Present: Mr. S.S.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Kanshi Ram and Krishan (petitioners in Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005) and Ved Parkash Saini, Advocate -2- Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005. (respondent No.2 in Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005) along with others were tried by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 419/ 466/ 468/ 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). Vide judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 8.3.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, Kanshi Ram, Krishan and Ved Parkash Saini were convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences. Under Section 419 of the Code, Kanshi Ram, Krishan and Ved Parkash Saini were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years as well as fine of Rs.500/- each under Sections 466, 468 and 471 of the Code each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The sentences for the aforesaid offences were ordered to run concurrently. The judgment of conviction and the sentence order passed by the trial Court were challenged by Kanshi Ram, Krishan and Ved Parkash Saini before the lower appellate Court by way of filing separate appeals. One appeal was filed by Kanshi Ram and Krishan (who are father and son, respectively) and the other appeal was filed Ved Parkash Saini. The Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra, vide judgment dated 21.2.2005 accepted the appeal filed by Ved Parkash Saini and acquitted him of the charge framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt and setting -3- Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005. aside the judgment of conviction and the sentence order passed by the trial Court qua Ved Parkash Saini. However, the appeal filed by Kanshi Ram and Krishan was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005 has been filed by petitioners Kanshi Ram and Krishan challenging their conviction and sentence, as mentioned above, whereas Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005 has been filed by Smt. Preeto widow of Pirthi Singh against the acquittal of Ved Parkash Saini (respondent No.2 in Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005) as recorded by the lower appellate Court. Both these revision petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. I have heard Mr. S.S.Rana, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005, Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005 and Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case. The instant case was registered against the accused on 19.1.1986 at the instance of Pirthi Singh (since deceased). Smt. Preeto (petitioner in Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005) is the widow of Pirthi Singh. Pirthi Singh had 25 acres of land at Villages Darra Khurd and Doda Kheri, one tractor, one car and one residential house. About one and a half years prior to the registration of the instant case against the accused, the officials of Electricity -4- Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005. Board had come to cut eucalyptus trees from the land of Pirthi Singh situated in Village Darra Khurd. Pirthi Singh engaged Ved Parkash Saini (respondent No.2 in Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005), who is a Practicing Advocate at Kurukshetra, as his counsel and called him (Ved Parkash Saini) at his (Pirthi Singh's) tube-well at Village Darra Khurd. At that time petitioners Kanshi Ram and Krishan, who are relatives of Pirthi Singh , were also present there along with others. Ved Parkash Saini, Advocate, got the thumb impressions of Pirthi Singh on two power of attorneys and on some blank papers and told him that he would file a suit regarding eucalyptus trees. Later on, Pirthi Singh came to know that Kanshi Ram, Krishan, Ved Parkash Saini along with others, in conspiracy with each other, had used the above-mentioned papers in order to secure a decree in favour of Ran Singh son of petitioner Kanshi Ram regarding his property, tractor, car, residential house and the money deposited in the Bank by illegally mentioning the said Ran Singh as his (Pirthi Singh's) son and also got entered a mutation fraudulently in favour of Ran Singh. Ran Singh had never been adopted as son by Pirthi Singh (deceased). During investigation, the accused were arrested. The trial Court, after framing charge, recording evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused, as afore-mentioned. However, on appeal, the lower appellate Court acquitted Ved Parkash Saini of the charge framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt -5- Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005. whereas the appeal filed by Kanshi Ram and Krishan was dismissed. At the outset, it may be mentioned here that Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005 filed by Smt. Preeto widow of Pirthi Singh against the acquittal of Ved Parkash Saini (respondent No.2 in Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005) as recorded by the lower appellate Court, deserves to be allowed and the judgment of the lower appellate Court, insofar as it records acquittal of Ved Parkash Saini deserves to be set aside. No doubt, it is well settled that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice and that High Court should not re- appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the Court acquitting the accused except to prevent miscarriage of justice, but each case has its own facts. In this case, the facts and circumstances of the case, to be discussed hereinafter, disclose that the lower appellate Court, while setting aside the judgment of conviction and the sentence order passed by the trial Court qua Ved Parkash Saini, rendered the impugned judgment without considering material evidence on record against Ved Parkash Saini and for that reason the impugned judgment is consisted of faulty reasoning in that regard. The lower appellate Court, while passing the impugned judgment acquitting accused- respondent Ved Parkash Saini of the charge framed against him, -6- Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005. did not rightly consider all aspects of the case. The connivance of petitioners Kanshi Ram and Krishan with Ved Parkash Saini, Advocate, and others, in getting a decree passed fraudulently in favour of Ran Singh son of petitioner Kanshi Singh stood proved on record. The prosecution had examined Gurdev Singh (P.W.10) and Kuldip Singh (P.W.11) who stated that Pirthi Singh (deceased) wanted to file a case against the Electricity Department and he had called them to the fields where the accused were present. Their evidence is to the effect that signatures of Pirthi Singh were obtained on some blank papers. An Advocate was also present there. Both Gurdev Singh (P.W.10) and Kuldip Singh (P.W.11), however, did not identify Ved Parkash Saini in Court. It does not in any way absolve connivance of Ved Parkash Saini with the other accused. A verdict of acquittal cannot follow the moment the witnesses try to help the accused and dispensation of justice is not dependant upon the witnesses who make efforts to hold the law to ransom. Once the prosecution case is established on record by the other cogent and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution, non- supporting of its case by the witnesses who appeared to have been won over by the accused does not at all affect the prosecution case. In this case, Smt. Preeto (widow of complainant Pirthi Singh) appeared in Court as P.W.5 and corroborated the prosecution case. She categorically stated that neither she nor her husband ever appeared in Court to get -7- Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005. executed a decree in favour of Ran Singh and that she never filed a suit on behalf of Ran Singh. Ran Singh was never adopted by Pirthi Singh. From the statement of Amolak Ram (P.W.8), it is clear that Pirthi Singh never adopted Ran Singh. From the reports of Finger Prints Expert, which have been placed on record as P.X and P.Y, it is proved that some other persons appeared in the Court on behalf of complainant Pirthi Singh as well his wife Smt. Preeto (P.W.5) and along with the forged thumb impressions of Pirthi Singh, which were taken by accused Ved Parkash Saini on blank papers, some other documents were prepared and a suit was got filed and a fraudulent decree was got executed in favour of Ran Singh son of petitioner Kanshi Ram vide which the entire property belonging to Pirthi Singh was got transferred in the name of Ran Singh. Thereafter, a mutation had also been got entered in favour of Ran Singh. From he statement of Munshi Ram Gulati, Advocate, (P.W.1) it is proved that on 20.3.1985, Ved Parkash Saini, Advocate, had asked him to file a civil suit titled Ran Singh v. Pirthi along with power of attorney which had already been thumb marked and, accordingly, a suit was filed by Munshi Ram Gupta, Advocate (P.W.1) on behalf of plaintiff Ran Singh. As mentioned above, from the statement of Smt. Preeto (P.W.5), widow of Pirthi Singh, it is clear that neither she nor her husband during his life time filed any civil suit titled Ran Singh v. Pirthi. Both Munshi Ram Gupta (P.W.1) and Smt.Preeti (P.W.5) were subjected to a searching cross-examination but nothing favourable to the accused could be elicited therefrom. Surjan -8- Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005. Singh (P.W.,9), who was working as Clerk with accused Ved Parkash Saini, proved his handwriting on original plaint Exhibit P.W.9/A in suit titled Ran Singh v. Pirthi, on application praying for putting up the file Exhibit P.W.9/B, on power of attorneys Exhibits P.W.9/C and P.W.9/D. From his statement, it is clear that he had worked under the directions of Ved Parkash Saini. The oral evidence discussed above, gets corroboration from the reports of Finger Prints Expert, which have been placed on record as P.X and P.Y. In the reports Exhibits P.X and P.Y, it has been categorically observed that the disputed print marked as A-2 and A-3 on the original plaint Exhibit P.W.9/A and disputed print marked A-4 on the power of attorney Exhibit P.W.9/C were not of Smt.Preeto wife of Pirthi Singh and, instead, the disputed print marked A-2 and A-3 on original plaint Exhibit P.W.9/A allegedly of Pirthi Singh were identical with the right thumb print of petitioner Krishan son of petitioner Kanshi Ram. Similarly, it was proved that the disputed print marked A-9 on Exhibit I (i.e on the statement recorded in the Court on 21.3.2005) allegedly of Pirthi Singh was identical with the right thumb imprint of accused-petitioner Kanshi Ram. Since disputed print marked A-6 and A-7 on the written statement dated 21.3.2005 (Exhibit P.W.9/F) and disputed print marked A-B on power of attorney (Exhibit P.W.9/C) were identical with left print of Pirthi Singh, it is clear that the thumb impression of Pirthi Singh taken on some blank papers and power of attorneys were used in the suit titled Ran Singh v. Pirthi. For the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Revision No.953 of -9- Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005. 2005 is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 21.2.2005 rendered by the lower appellate Court, insofar as acquitting Ved Parkash Saini (accused-respondent No.2 in Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005) of the aforesaid offences by setting the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 8.1.1999 passed by the trial Court to that extent is set aside. In result, the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 8.1.1999 passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing Ved Parkash Saini under Sections 419, 466, 468 and 471 of the Code, as mentioned above, are restored. In view of the above, the conviction of petitioners Kanshi Ram and Krishan and accused Ved Parkash Saini for the aforesaid offences is maintained. However, their sentence for the aforesaid offences is reduced from maximum rigorous imprisonment for three years to rigorous imprisonment for one year while imposing a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- upon them, which shall be shared by petitioners Kanshi Ram and Krishan and accused Ved Parkash Saini This fine will be in addition to the fine of Rs.500/- imposed by the trial Court on petitioners Kanshi Ram and Krishan and accused Ved Parkash Saini. If recovered, out of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- will be paid to Smt.Preeto widow of Pirthi Singh (petitioner in Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005) as compensation and remaining Rs.50,000/- will go to the State as litigation expenses. The sentence order as passed by the trial Court against petitioners Kanshi Ram and Krishan and accused Ved Parkash Saini is modified accordingly. Petitioners Kanshi Ram -10- Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005. and Krishan and Ved Parkash Saini (respondent No.2 in Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005) shall deposit the amount of fine of Rs.2,00,000/- in the trial Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say, if they fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine of Rs.2,00,000/- in the trial Court within the period stipulated above, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment as awarded to petitioners Kanshi Ram and Krishan and Ved Parkash Saini (respondent No.2 in Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005) by the trial Court for the aforesaid offences, mentioned above, shall remain unaltered. With the above conditional modification in the sentence order passed by the trial Court, Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005 filed by petitioners Kanshi Ram and Krishan is dismissed. Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005 filed by Smt. Preeto stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Kanshi Ram, Krishan and Ved Parkash Saini are ordered to be taken into custody to serve the sentence awarded/remaining sentence in this case. Necessary information in this regard be sent forthwith to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. March 11, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE -11- Criminal Revision No.456 of 2005 and Criminal Revision No.953 of 2005.