Crl.Revision No.1210 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.1210 of 1999 Date of decision:6.10.2009 Ram Pal another ... Petitioners versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Saurabh Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.K.S.Godara, DAG, Haryana. ... JORA SINGH, J. Ram Pal and Harchandi through instant revision have impugned the judgment dated 6.9.1999 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Vide this judgment, appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.1994 passed by ACJM, Faridabad, was dismissed. As per judgment and order dated 22.12.1994 of ACJM, Faridabad, the petitioners were convicted under Sections 466/468/471/34 IPC, and were sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one month under Sections 466 IPC and 468 IPC each, and to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for fifteen days under Section 471 IPC. As per story, on 12.6.1989, Ram Pal filed civil suit against Kishan Lal for declaration to the effect that he is owner of 1/9th share in the land measuring 114 kanals 13 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Sotai, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. On 14.6.1989, the defendant Crl.Revision No.1210 of 1999 2 appeared in Court along with Sh.Raqnbir Singh Tanwar, Advocate, and filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Statement on oath of the defendant was recorded, which was duly thumb marked by him, and identified by Sh.Ranbir Singh Tanwar, Advocate. Statement of Sh. Suresh Bhadana, Advocate, was also recorded and the civil suit was ordered to be decreed. On 26.4.1990, Vinod Kumar, Clerk in the judicial room, reported that he had gone to Chandigarh on 19.4.1990 and when he came back to the record room on 21.4.1990, then found the file titled as 'Ram Pal Vs. Kishan Lal' lying on his table. After checking the file, thumb impressions on the power of attorney, written statement and the statement recorded in the Court, were found smudged. Bhanwar Singh, Clerk, was on leave on 21.4.1990. After returning from leave, Bhanwar Singh told Vinod Kumar that he had not shown this file to anybody. On 19.4.1990, Ranjit Singh, Clerk in the Copying Agency, had handled this file. Matter was reported to the Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Then ultimately, the CJM, Faridabad, ordered the police to take cognizance of the case and investigate the same. During investigation, the police came to know that Harchandi had impersonated Kishan Lal. Specimen thumb impressions of Harchandi were obtained and were compared with the disputed thumb impressions. Thumb impressions of Kishan Lal, Rishi Pal, Ranjit and Om Parkash were also obtained for comparison After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Accused were charged under Sections 420/466/468/471/34 IPC. Evidence was led by the prosecution and ultimately, the accused were convicted and sentenced, as stated above. Crl.Revision No.1210 of 1999 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that at the time of commission of crime, Harchandi was 80 years' old, whereas Ram Pal was 45 years' old. Occurrence was in the month of June, 1989. The impugned judgment is not challenged on the point of conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioners requested that a lenient view may be taken qua sentence. Learned State counsel produced custody certificates of the petitioners. Same are taken on record. Learned State counsel argued that the State has no objection if a lenient view is taken keeping in view the age of the petitioners. Evidence on file shows that Ram Pal had filed a suit for declaration against Kishan Lal on 12.6.1989. On 14.6.1989, defendant appeared with counsel and filed written statement, admitting claim of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed. But thumb impressions on the written statement and power of attorney were found superimposed. During investigation, it came to the notice that instead of Kishan Lal, one Harchandi had appeared posing himself as Kishan Lal. Disputed thumb impressions were compared with the standard thumb impressions of Harchandi. Disputed thumb impressions Q1 and Q2 on the written statement and the standard thumb impressions were found to be of one and the same person. Prem Chand Hooda, Director, Finger Prints Bureau, Madhuban, appeared as PW4 and stated that disputed thumb impressions Q1 and Q2 on the written statement were identical with those of Harchandi, but disputed thumb impressions Q3 on the statement dated 14.6.1989, and Q4 on the power of attorney were found blurred/smudged beyond comparison. Admittedly, thumb impression of one person cannot tally with the thumb impression of second person. Something could be said if the dispute is Crl.Revision No.1210 of 1999 4 regarding signatures. Science regarding identification of finger prints/thumb impressions is a perfect science. No ground to disbelieve the Director, Finger Prints Bureau, Madhuban. In defence, the petitioners had also produced expert, but statement of the expert is without any evidentiary value because expert appearing on behalf of the petitioners stated that disputed thumb impression Q1 is not identical in structural representation to the corresponding portion. Secondly, the thumb impression was dis-similar to the specimen thumb impression. The expert appeared in defence did not state a word regarding disputed thumb impression Q2. As per expert of the prosecution, disputed thumb impressions Q3 and Q4 were not comparable but thumb impressions Q1 and Q2 were tallying with the standard thumb impressions. If as per the expert examined by the petitioners, thumb impression Q1 is also not comparable then question is what about thumb impression Q2. No report by the expert of the petitioners that thumb impression Q2 is not tallying with the standard thumb impression or Q2 is also not comparable. The expert appeared on behalf of the prosecution had no enmity with the petitioners or the complainant party. Report of the expert is independent. No question to disbelieve the Director, Finger Prints Bureau, Madhuban, but the expert appearing on behalf of the petitioners supported the contention of the petitioners because he was produced by the petitioners. There are minor discrepancies here and there, but the same are not material. Trial Court as well as first Appellate Court opined that Harchandi had appeared in the Court posing himself as Kishan Lal and had thumb marked the relevant documents. Occurrence was in the month of June, 1989. At that time, Crl.Revision No.1210 of 1999 5 Harchandi was 80 years' old, whereas Ram Pal was 45 years' old. Both the petitiones have faced the agony of trial for about 20 years. Petitioners are the first offenders and belong to a poor family. Ends of justice would be fully met if a lenient view is taken. Keeping in view the nature of offence and the age of the petitioners, particularly when they faced the agony of trial for about 20 years, I take a lenient view and direct the petitioners to undergo imprisonment already undergone (one month and ten days). With the aforesaid modification on the point of sentence, revision being without merit is dismissed. 6.10.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE