Jharkhand High Court
Nepal Hembram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 535 of 2012
Nepal Hembram ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
With
Cr. Revision No. 409 of 2012
Dilip Mandal ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through: Video Conferencing
07/25.08.2021
1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012
assisted by Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate.
2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 535/2012.
3. Heard Mr. Azeemuddin and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned
counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State in Cr.
Rev. No. 535/2012 and Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012 respectively.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.
409/2012
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012 submits that the present
petitioner was working as Village Level Worker and the
allegation against the petitioner is that he was instrumental in
issuance of death certificate of Nunulal Hembram. He submits
that Sukul Hembram, who had died, was also known as
Nunulal Hembram and accordingly, there was no illegality in
issuance of the death certificate. The learned senior counsel has
also submitted that it is not in dispute that Sukul Hembram had
expired and he was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works.
He also submits that the photograph of Sukul Hembram was
also exhibited and as per the photograph and other identity of
the person working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works, name of
the person who was working was Nunulal Hembram and
accordingly, it is the specific case that Sukul Hembram was also
known as Nunulal Hembram. The learned senior counsel
submits that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot
be said that the alleged offence by the petitioner-Dilip Mandal
was proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned senior
counsel submits that the petitioner-Dilip Mandal had nothing to
gain from the alleged issuance of forged death certificate and he
was working in his official capacity only. The learned counsel
also submits that no charge has been framed for offence under
Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, there is
no question of conspiracy with the prime accused i.e., Nepal
Hambram, who was the person who had applied for issuance of
the death certificate.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.
535/2012
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-
Nepal Hembram has submitted that the application for issuance
of death certificate of Nunulal Hambram was filed in view of
the fact that the father of Nepal Hambram was working in
Chitranjan Locomotive Works and was known as Nunulal
Hembram. The learned counsel submits that it is not in dispute
that the petitioner-Nepal Hembram was the person whose
father was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works. He
submits that in such circumstances, the application for issuance
of death certificate in the name of Nunulal Hembram, cannot be
said to be illegal. The learned counsel submits that in view of
the facts and circumstances of this case, his father was also
known as Nunulal Hembram who was working in Chitranjan
Locomotive Works and accordingly, no case under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of IPC was made out against the
petitioner-Nepal Hembram. He submits that the judgment of
conviction passed by the learned courts below is perverse and
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Arguments of the opposite party-State in both the cases
6. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of opposite party-
State in both the cases have vehemently opposed the prayer and
have submitted that the complainant was Nunulal Hembram,
who had stated that the petitioner-Nepal Hembram and others
had taken part in issuance of his death certificate, although he
was alive. They also submit that Sukul Hembram was the
brother of Nunulal Hembram and the petitioner-Nepal
Hembram was son of the Sukul Hembram, but he applied for
issuance of death certificate of Nunulal Hembram, as Sukul
Hembram was working in the name of Nunulal Hembram in
Chitranjan Locomotive Works. They also submit that the
purpose of applying for death certificate of Nunulal Hembram
was to take the post-death benefit and other consequential
benefits of Sukul Hembram who was working in the name of
Nunulal Hembram. The learned counsels submit that there are
concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below with
regard to the role of the present petitioners in the matter of
issuance of death certificate of the complainant-Nunulal
Hembram. They also submit that the petitioner-Dilip Mandal
was the Village Level Worker and he having certified that
Nunulal Hembram has expired was instrumental in issuance of
death certificate of Nunulal Hembram, although Nunulal
Hembram was alive and was the complainant who made
allegation regarding illegal issuance of his death certificate. The
learned counsels have submitted that there are no illegality or
perversity in the impugned judgments and accordingly, the
same do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.
7. Arguments are concluded.
8. Post these cases on 20th September, 2021 for judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
