IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 2001. Judgement reserved on: 21.7.2008. Date of decision: July 23, 2008. State of H.P. ….. Appellant. Vs. Chaman Lal …. respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The State has come in appeal against the judgement dated 15.11.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul & Spiti exercising the powers of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kullu in Police Challan No. 84-1/96 acquitting the respondent under Sections 466, 468 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.3.1996 PW 4 Brij Lal Civil Ahlmad reported to learned Additional District Judge, Kullu that on 23.3.1996 at about 3.30 p.m. when he was busy with his work as Civil Ahlmad, the respondent-accused, who was appellant in Civil Appeal No. 14/1995 titled as Chaman Lal vs. Kishan Chand Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… came in his office with an application to submit list of witnesses alongwith Talbana for the purpose of depositing the diet money for the witnesses. The accused expressed his desire to go through the order dated 21.3.1996 passed by the court in the aforesaid appeal file so as to comply with the court order. PW 4 Brij Lal in order to facilitate accused took out the said file and read out the order to him. PW 4 received the list of witnesses, application etc. and kept the file temporarily on his table. PW 4 became busy with other work. The accused taking advantage of the situation took the file and tampered with the dates in the file. PW 4 noticed the accused tampering with the file and therefore, questioned the accused. PW 4 noticed that accused in the grounds of appeal has changed the dates from 20.2.1990 to 20.4.1990 and 21.2.1992 to 21.4.1992. Likewise in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the accused has changed the date from 20.2.1990 to 20.4.1990. The accused on the asking of PW 4 admitted that he had only changed the dates in the record. It is the prosecution case that PW 3 Jitender, PW 2 Roshan Lal, PW 5 Bhagat Ram and P.C. Negi the other court officials were also present and working in that room. PW 4 brought the tampering of the file by the accused to the notice of learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, who in turn reported the matter to the police. On this the case was registered, on completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused, who was charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 466, 468 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses and produced documentary evidence. The accused in his statement …3… under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the allegations. In defence, the accused examined Chand Singh, English Clerk, Sessions Division, Mandi. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused on 15.11.2000 by giving him benefit of doubt. In these circumstances, the State has come in appeal. 3. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the respondent- accused and gone through the record. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as forgery committed by the accused in the judicial record has been proved by examining the prosecution witnesses in whose presence the accused made tampering in the appeal and the application for condonation of delay. There is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the material on record. The learned counsel for the accused has supported the impugned judgement and has submitted that the trial court after due appreciation of the material on record has recorded a finding of acquittal and the view taken by the trial court is possible from the material on record. She has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. PW 1 R.K. Suman, Advocate has stated that he was representing respondent Kishan Chand in appeal titled Chaman Lal vs. Kishan Chand, which was pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge. He has stated that copy of summons Ex. P- 1 and grounds of appeal Ex. P 2 are of that appeal, which were …4… recovered by the police vide memo Ex. PA. PW 2 Roshan Lal has stated that in the year 1996, he was working in the office of learned Additional District Judge, Kullu. On 23.3.1996 at about 3.30 p.m., he was in the room of Ahlmad, Chaman Lal accused came there and he asked Brij Lal about the file, who took out the file and read the order. Thereafter Brij Lal, Civil Ahlmad kept the file on his table and he became busy in his work. The accused took the file of his own and started reading. On inquiry done immediately, it was found that he made interpolations in the appeal and limitation application at three places. Brij Lal had submitted an application to the learned Additional District Judge. He has seen the appeal mark-X, in which the accused had done overwriting at points-A and B and application mark-Y, where accused had done overwriting at point-C. The accused had done this on 23.3.1996. In cross-examination, he has denied that overwriting was not done by the accused. PW 3 Jitender Pal has stated that he was attached as Copyist in the office of learned Additional District Judge, Kullu. On 23.3.1996, they were sitting in the room. Brij Lal, Bhagat, Roshan and Prem Chand Negi were also there. The accused came there with Talbana and application. The file was with Brij Lal and he took out the file, which was shown to the accused. Brij Lal started taking out other files from the almirah. Bhagat Ram was looking towards Chaman Lal, he saw Chaman Lal turning the pages of the file and he was holding a pen in his hand. He wrote something on the file with the pen in his presence. He disclosed this fact to Brij Lal, who caught Chaman Lal immediately and saw that tampering was done in the file by changing the dates. …5… In cross examination, he has stated that accused on that date had submitted Talbana and list of witnesses. 5. PW 4 Brij Lal has stated that in the year 1996, he was working as Civil Ahlmad with learned Additional District Judge, Kullu. On 23.3.1996 at about 3.30 p.m. accused came to him alongwith Talbana and road and diet money application. He came there to comply order dated 21.3.1996 of the court. After receiving the application, he took out the case file and kept the file for compliance on the table and he became busy in his work. In the meantime, the accused made changes in the dates by changing the dates at two places in the memo of appeal, he also changed the date in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The date 21.2.1992 was changed to 21.4.1992 in the appeal and in the application from 20.2.1990 to 20.4.1990. He turned back and saw that accused was doing overwriting. The accused admitted the same on his asking. He brought this fact to the notice of learned Additional District Judge. Thereafter, he submitted report in writing. In cross examination, he has denied that corrections were made earlier at the time of filing of the appeal. 6. PW 5 Bhagat Ram has stated that in the year 1996, he was working as Copyist in the office of learned Additional District Judge, Kullu. On 23.3.1996, accused came with Talbana and inquired from Brij Lal, Ahlmad about his file. On this, Brij Lal had shown the file and read over the order from the file. He kept the file on the table and started doing other work. The accused taking advantage of the situation had done tampering in the file. He …6… changed the dates in his presence. Later on, Brij Lal reported the matter to the learned Additional District Judge. In cross examination, he has stated that without application for inspection, no-one can give the file. PW 6 K.C. Rana has stated that after completion of investigation, he submitted the challan. It has come in the statement of PW 7 that Brij Lal, Ahlmad submitted a report Ex. P 6 and he passed order Ex. PW 7/A with endorsement Ex. PW. 7/B. On the basis of endorsement, a case was registered at Kullu. PW 8 Khub Ram, ASI has stated that in the year 1996, he was posted as Investigating Officer at Police Station, Kullu. He partly investigated the case. PW 9 Prem Singh has stated that in the year 1996, he was posted as Investigating Officer at Police Station, Kullu. The case was earlier investigated by Khub Ram. FIR Ex. PW 9/A is written and signed by Kanshi Ram. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that case against him is false and has been instituted against him at the instance of Prem Chand Negi, against whom he made complaint to learned Additional District Judge regarding copies and at that time he was copyist in the court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu. The accused has examined DW 1 Chand Singh and has placed on record copy of application dated 5.5.1994 of Chaman Lal Ex. DW 1/A and another copy of application dated 4.6.1994 of Chaman Lal Ex. DW 1/B. 7. Ex. P-6 is the report dated 23.3.1996 of PW 4 Brij Lal, Civil Ahlmad which was submitted to learned Additional District Judge, Kullu. In the report, PW 4 has stated that Chaman Lal started forging/ tampering at page No.2 of grounds of appeal qua dates from …7… 20.2.1990 to 20.4.1990 and from 21.2.1992 to 21.4.1992 and on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act from 20.2.1990 to 20.4.1990. In Ex. P 6, it has also been mentioned that Chaman Lal in presence of Bhagat Ram, Jitender Kumar, P C Negi and Roshan Lal admitted that he had changed the dates in the grounds of appeal and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. On the basis of Ex. P 6, learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 23.3.1996 Ex. PW 7/A directed S.H.O., Police Station, Kullu to register the case. The copy of order dated Ex. PW 7/A was forwarded to S.H.O., Police Station, Kullu vide endorsement Ex. PW 7/B and thereupon FIR No. 122 of 1996 was registered vide endorsement Ex. PW 9/A of MHC and FIR Ex. PW 9/B was registered. In Ex. PW 7/A and FIR Ex. PW 9/B, there is no mention that accused had done the tampering in presence of Bhagat Ram, Jitender Kumar, P.C. Negi and Roshan Lal. PW 4 Brij Lal even in his report Ex. P 6 has not stated that accused had changed the dates in the grounds of appeal and application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in presence of Bhagat Ram, Jitender Kumar, P.C. Negi and Roshan Lal. PW 2 Roshan Lal has stated that accused took the file of his own and had written something therein. On inquiry, it was revealed later on that accused had made changes in the appeal and the limitation petition at three places and the witness has identified the changes at those places in appeal mark- X at points A and B and application under Limitation Act mark- Y at point C. PW 2 has not specifically stated that changes at points A, B and C were made by the accused in his presence or he had actually seen the accused making those changes, rather he has …8… stated that it was revealed later on during inquiry. Therefore, PW 2 is not an eye witness to the actual changes made by the accused in the appeal and application for condonation of delay. 8. PW 3 Jitender Pal has stated that accused had done tampering in the file, but he has not identified the tampering allegedly made by the accused in the file. PW 4 Brij Lal has stated that he was busy in his work and in the meantime accused changed the dates in the file. He looked behind and saw that accused was making overwritings. He has not stated that overwritings were done by the accused in grounds of appeal Ex. P 4 and application for condonation of delay Ex. P 5 at specific places namely points A, B and C. PW 4 in his statement in the court has not stated that PW 2 Roshan Lal, PW 3 Jitender Pal, PW 5 Bhagat Ram and P.C. Negi were present when accused changed the dates in the grounds of appeal and application for condonation of delay nor he has stated in the court that in presence of these persons accused admitted that he had done the changes in the dates. PW 5 Bhagat Ram has stated that accused had done tampering in the file by changing the dates in his presence, he has not stated that PW 2 Roshan Lal, PW 3 Jitender Pal were present there and accused admitted in their presence that he had made the changes. In the cross examination, PW 5 was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., where he has not stated that accused made the changes. The accused has denied that the changes were made by him of dates in grounds of appeal and application for condonation of delay. The alleged admission of accused of tampering the dates in presence of …9… Brij Lal, Bhagat Ram, Jitender Pal, P.C. Negi and Roshan Lal has not been proved. The first version of PW 4 Brij Lal is recorded in report Ex. P 6, but in that report he has not stated that accused tampered the record in presence of Bhagat Ram, Jitender Pal, P.C. Negi and Roshan Lal. The opinion of handwriting expert has not been obtained in the case so as to pin-point the allegation of tampering by the accused of the record. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of material on record has given benefit of doubt to the accused. It cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while giving benefit of doubt to the accused does not emerge from the record. The view taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in acquitting the accused has not been shown to be perverse or otherwise not at all possible from the material on record. This court in appeal will not convert the acquittal into conviction merely on the ground that other view is also possible from the record unless it is shown that view taken by trial court is be perverse and not at all possible, which is not the position in the present case. No case for interference has been made out. 9. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondent stand discharged. July 23, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.