IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.44 of 2003 with Cr. Appeal No.73 of 2003. Date of Decision: 24th September, 2010. _______________________________________________________ 1. Cr. Appeal No.44 of 2003. State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Jeevan Kumar and another ...Respondents. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No.1: Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate. For respondent No.2 Ms. Monika Shukla, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate. 2. Cr. Appeal No.73 of 2003. State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Jeevan Kumar ..Respondent. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) : Both these appeals have arisen from the same judgment passed in Criminal Case No.149-I/1995, 13-2/1996, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 27.6.2002, whereby respondent Rumal Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Singh was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas respondent Jeevan Kumar in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2003 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of `3,000/- with default clause and acquitted for the offences under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The State has challenged the acquittal, of respondent Rumal Singh for all the offences and that of Jeevan Kumar for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code for which he was acquitted. 3. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. In the month of October, 1992 there was a recruitment-rally for the enrolment in the Indian Army. 22 candidates including respondent Jeevan Kumar were selected. He alongwith others was required to produce the original matriculation certificates and other documents. It is alleged that he produced certificate bearing Sr. No.18032 regarding passing of his matriculation examination from the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Dharamshala. Thus, the Branch Recruiting Officer, Palampur sent the said - 3 - certificate for its verification. The Board authorities reported that it was fake and the Secretary of the Board Shri R.C. Kapil, lodged the report to the police vide his letter Ext.PW1/A. The Recruiting Officer also recorded the statement dated 24.12.1992 Ext.P-3 of respondent Jeevan Kumar, in the presence of Tilak Raj and PW3 Tara Chand whereby he admitted having purchased it from respondent Rumal Singh for a sum of ` 1,000/-. This fact was admitted by respondent Jeevan Kumar in the presence of his mother and PW2 Man Singh. On the conclusion of the investigation, a case under Sections 420, 468 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code was found against the respondents. As such, they were impleaded as accused and Challan was presented in the Court for their trial. 4. The respondents were charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondent Jeevan Kumar admitted in his statement having produced the said certificate to the Recruiting Officer, but denied the other circumstances and pleaded innocence, whereas the case of - 4 - respondent Rumal Singh was denial simplicitor. At the end of trial, respondent Jeevan Kumar was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas respondent Rumal Singh was acquitted as there was no proof of conspiracy. 6. Shri J.S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General vehemently argued that there was enough evidence against both the respondents for the offences they were acquitted and he led me through the evidence on record. 7. On the reappraisal of the evidence I did not find any direct or indirect evidence of conspiracy qua the respondents to procure the false certificate and there was no evidence against respondent Rumal Singh worth the name to connect him with the offences aforesaid. Thus his acquittal was rightly recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. In so far as respondent Jeevan Kumar is concerned, the conspiracy as alleged has not been proved against him, as stated above. The statement of Colonel M.P.S. Kapil was important but he was not examined despite various opportunities afforded to the prosecution. However, PW-1 Shri R.C. Kapil, the then Secretary of the HP Board of School Education stated - 5 - that on verification of the certificate aforesaid it was found to have not been issued by the Board and the Recruiting Officer was accordingly informed vide Ext.P-2. 9. In cross-examination he categorically stated that the record which was sent by him to the concerned quarter was not produced before him by respondent Jeevan Kumar. 10. I find that though, the certificate in question was not genuine, but admittedly it was produced by respondent Jeevan Kumar to the Recruiting Officer. To this effect his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also in line with the prosecution evidence. The statement Ext.P-3 though is alleged to have been signed by him under force, but, however, the certificate Ext.P-5 was used by the respondent to secure the job. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent is guilty only for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and not of criminal conspiracy and cheating as these offences have not been proved against him and also there was no connecting evidence against respondent Rumal Singh. 11. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal of respondent Rumal Singh for the offences charged against him and also respondent Jeevan Kumar except - 6 - for the offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code is borne out from the record. The conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code has not been assailed by Jeevan Kumar. Thus, both the appeals filed by the State against the acquittal as aforesaid are without any merit, hence dismissed. 12. Send down the record forthwith. September 24, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)