Jharkhand High Court
Nepal Hembram Son Of Late Nunulal ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 535 of 2012
Nepal Hembram son of Late Nunulal Hembram,
Resident of village- Chandradiha, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara,
District- Jamtara ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
With
Criminal Revision No. 409 of 2012
Dilip Mandal son of Lakhinarayan Mandal, resident of
Village- Khairbani, P.O.- Jamjori, P.S.- Fatehpur, District-
Jamtara ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through: Video Conferencing
08/20.09.2021
1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the 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, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 535/2012.
3. Heard Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. and Mr. Tapas Roy,
A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State in Cr.
Rev. No. 535/2012 and Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012 respectively.
4. Both these criminal revision petitions are directed against
the Judgments dated 17.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2012 and Criminal
Appeal No. 03/2012 respectively whereby and whereunder the
Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the
petitioners namely, Nepal Hembram and Dilip Mandal passed
by the learned trial court has been upheld and both the criminal
appeals have been dismissed.
5. The learned trial court, vide Judgment of conviction and
the order of sentence dated 19.12.2011 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in G.R. No. 301 of 1998 /T.R. No.
233 of 2011 arising out of Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case No.
135/1998 dated 20.07.1998, had convicted both the petitioners
namely, Nepal Hembram and Dilip Mandal under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and had
sentenced each of them as under:
- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the
offence under Section 419 of IPC;
- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of
Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 420 of IPC;
- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of
Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 467 of IPC;
- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of
Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 468 of IPC;
- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the
offence under Section 471 of IPC; and
- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence
under Section 500 of IPC and
- in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for further two months and
- all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Arguments on behalf of petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012
6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012 submitted that the
petitioner-Dilip Mandal was working as Village Level Worker
and the allegation against him is that he was instrumental in
issuance of the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram. He
submitted 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
also submitted that it is not in dispute that Sukul Hembram had
expired and he was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works.
He further submitted that the photograph of Sukul Hembram
has also been exhibited and as per the photograph and other
identity documents of the person working in Chitranjan
Locomotive Works, the name of the person who was working
was Nunulal Hembram and accordingly, it is the specific case
of the prosecution that Sukul Hembram was also known as
Nunulal Hembram. The learned Senior counsel submitted that
under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said
that the offences against the petitioner-Dilip Mandal are proved
beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Senior counsel
further submitted that the petitioner-Dilip Mandal had nothing
to gain from issuance of the alleged forged death certificate and
he was working in his official capacity only. The learned Senior
counsel also submitted that no charge has been framed for the
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 Hembram who was the person who had
applied for issuance of the death certificate.
Arguments on behalf of petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 535/2012
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-
Nepal Hembram submitted that the application for issuance of
death certificate of Nunulal Hembram was filed in view of the
fact that the father of Nepal Hembram was working in
Chitranjan Locomotive Works and was known as Nunulal
Hembram. The learned counsel submitted that it is not in
dispute that the petitioner-Nepal Hembram was the person
whose father was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works
and in such circumstances, the application for issuance of the
death certificate in the name of Nunulal Hembram cannot be
said to be illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that in
view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the father of the
petitioner-Nepal Hembram 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 is made out against him. He submitted 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
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-
State in both the cases vehemently opposed the prayers made
on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the Complainant
is Nunulal Hembram who stated that the petitioner-Nepal
Hembram and others had taken part in issuance of the death
certificate in his name, although he was alive. They also
submitted that Sukul Hembram was the brother of Nunulal
Hembram and the petitioner-Nepal Hembram was the son of
Sukul Hembram, but he applied for issuance of death certificate
in the name of Nunulal Hembram, as Sukul Hembram was
working in the name of Nunulal Hembram in Chitranjan
Locomotive Works. They also submitted that the purpose of
applying for death certificate of Nunulal Hembram was to take
the post-death benefits and other consequential benefits of
Sukul Hembram who was working in the name of Nunulal
Hembram. They further submitted 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
the death certificate in the name of the Complainant-Nunulal
Hembram. They further submitted that the petitioner-Dilip
Mandal was the Village Level Worker and he having certified
that Nunulal Hembram has expired was instrumental in
issuance of the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram, although
Nunulal Hembram was alive and is the Complainant in the case
who has made the allegation regarding issuance of his death
certificate. They submitted that there is no illegality or
perversity in the impugned judgments and accordingly, the
same do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Findings of this Court
9. The prosecution case, in the present case, is based on a
Complaint presented by Nunulal Hembram on 25.04.1998
against Nepal Hembram and Sonamuni Hembram alleging
inter-alia that a death certificate has been issued in his name,
although he is alive. It was further alleged that Nepal Hembram
son of Sukul Hembram and Dilip Mandal were instrumental in
issuance of the death certificate being Certificate No. 178 dated
04.09.1997 in which Nepal Hembram declared himself to be the
son of Nunulal Hembram. It was also mentioned that this fact
was known to the people of the entire Panchayat that Shyamlal
Hembram is the son of Nunulal Hembram and the accused
Nepal Hembram is the son of Sukul Hembram. It was alleged
that neither Nepal Hembram is the son of Nunulal Hembram,
nor Sonamuni is the wife of Nunulal Hembram. On this
background, it was alleged that Nepal Hembram also used the
aforesaid death certificate to get employment in Chitranjan
Locomotive Works and to take out money from the bank
account. It was also alleged that the Complainant-Nunulal
Hembram had also issued a legal notice to Nepal Hembram,
which he refused to accept and threatened to kill the
Complainant.
10. The said Complaint was sent to the concerned police
station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and a
formal First Information Report being Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S.
Case No. 135/1998 dated 20.07.1998 was registered. The case
was investigated and after completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was submitted against Nepal Hembram S/o Sukul
Hembram and Sonamuni Hembram W/o Sukul Hembram,
Surai Kisku-the then Mukhiya and the Panchayat Sevak-Dilip
Mandal. Out of the four accused persons against whom charge-
sheet was submitted, Sonamuni Hembram and the then
Mukhiya-Surai Kisku expired and therefore, the prosecution
case was continued against Nepal Hembram and Dilip Mandal
only who are the petitioners before this Court.
11. It is important to note that the charge-sheet was,
interalia, submitted against Nepal Hembram S/o Sukul
Hembram who faced the trial and he has been alleged to have
obtained the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram who is the
Complainant of the case, but in the cause title of the present
case, the petitioner-Nepal Hembram has still described himself
as son of Nunulal Hembram. The criminal appeal before the
learned appellate court was also filed by Nepal Hembram
describing himself as son of Late Nunulal Hembram, although
Nunulal Hembram was himself the Complainant. It further
transpires from the Lower Court Records that the F.I.R. was
also registered interalia against Nepal Hembram S/o Late
Sukul Hembram. The complaint petition also describes the
petitioner-Nepal Hembram as son of Sukul Hembram and
Charge-sheet was also filed against Nepal Hembram S/o Sukul
Hembram. Thus description of the petitioner Nepal Hembram
S/o Nunulal Hembram is not correct and it should be read as
Nepal Hembram S/o Sukul Hembram.
12. The Charge-sheet was submitted on 31.12.1998 for
offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of
the Indian Penal Code and cognizance of the offence was taken
on 15.01.1999 and the charges were framed against the
petitioners on 28.03.2000 for offences under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 500 of IPC which were read over and
explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
13. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined
altogether 09 witnesses. P.W.-1 is Haru Rai who was the
Chaukidar of the Village- Chandradeepa. He deposed that
Nepal Hembram S/o Sukul Hembram got the death certificate
of Nunulal Hembram issued and upon enquiry, they found that
Nunulal Hembram was alive and accordingly, the death
certificate of Nunulal Hembram was illegal. He also deposed
that in the death certificate, there is mention of about obtaining
service in Chitranjan Locomotive Works, although the son of
the Informant-Nunulal Hembram is Shyamlal Hembram. He
has been fully cross-examined. In his cross-examination, he
stated that the father of Nepal Hembram was working in
Chitranjan Locomotive Works and had expired and the
petitioner-Nepal Hembram was taking out the death certificate
of his father. He also stated that the father of the petitioner-
Nepal Hembram were three brothers and it was only the father
of the petitioner-Nepal Hembram who was working in
Chitranjan Locomotive Works and after his death, his GPF and
post-death benefits were conferred upon Nepal Hembram. He
also stated that the petitioner-Nepal Hembram had taken out
the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram (the informant) for
obtaining job in Chitranjan Locomotive Works, although Nepal
Hembram is not the son of Nunulal Hembram and he is the son
of Sukul Hembram and the son of Nunulal Hembram is
Shyamlal Hembram.
14. P.W.-2 is Shambhu Murmu who is the son-in-law of the
informant-Nunulal Hembram. He deposed that Nunulal
Hembram was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works in
casual. He further stated that Sukul Hembram is the brother of
Nunulal Hembram and when a letter was issued for service of
Nunulal Hembram, then Sukul Hembram had taken that
service by stating himself as Nunulal Hembram and thereafter,
Sukul Hembram who was working in the name of Nunulal
Hembram had died while in service. Nepal Hembram declared
himself as son of Nunulal Hembram and got the death
certificate of Nunulal Hembram issued and thereafter, Nunulal
Hembram, who is still alive, filed the case. This witness has
been fully cross-examined and, in his cross-examination, he
stated that he is the son-in-law of the informant-Nunulal
Hembram who has filed the case. He further stated that the
father of Nepal Hembram was working in Chitranjan
Locomotive Works, though in the name of Nunulal Hembram
and Sonamuni is the mother of Nepal Hembram. He further
stated that the informant-Nunulal Hembram came to know
about the entire facts when Sukul Hembram, the father of
Nepal Hembram expired.
15. P.W.-3 is Nunulal Hembram who is the informant of the
case. He deposed that he is alive, but the accused declared him
dead so that they could get post-death benefits on the basis of
forged death certificate. He stated that they were three brothers
namely, Purlai Hembram, Sukul Hembram and he himself i.e.
Nunulal Hembram. He further stated that he has one son
namely, Shyamlal Hembram and three daughters and Nepal
Hembram is the son of Sukul Hembram. He identified his
signatures on the Complaint which were marked as Exhibits-1
to 1/4.
He further stated that Sukul Hembram was in service for last 10
years and 21 to 22 years back, the informant was working in
Railways in casual. He also stated that Sukul Hembram had
never worked as a casual employee. He stated that through the
inspector, he came to know that Sukul Hembram was working
his name. He stated that for 10 to 12 years, he had not gone out
of the village. He exhibited some documents regarding deposits
as Exhibits-2, 2/1 and 2/2. He also exhibited his loan pass book
with his photograph which was marked as Exhibit-3. He also
exhibited one affidavit of the year 1998 in which, it was sworn
by him that none of his family members is a government
employee. He identified his signature on the affidavit and the
affidavit and his signatures were marked as Exhibits-4 and 4/1
respectively. He exhibited photo copy of voter list giving the
serial number as 836, which was marked as Exhibit-X for
identification. In his cross-examination, he stated that all the
three brothers including himself were separated last 6 to 7 years
ago and earlier, all were one family. He stated that the father of
Nepal Hembram i.e. Sukul Hembram never worked in service
and he had joined the service 10 years ago and the mother of
Nepal Hembram was Sonamuni. He exhibited two photographs
of Sukul Hembram which were marked as Exhibits-A and A/1.
He also stated that Nepal Hembram was the only son of his
parents and the father of Nepal Hembram used to say that he
was working in dam and used to go for duty in the morning
and used to come back in the evening. He never tried to find
out as to where the father of Nepal Hembram was working. He
also stated that after death of the father of Nepal Hembram, he
came to know through inspector that Sukul Hembram was
working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works in his name.
16. P.W.-4 is Satomuni Kisku who was the then village
Pradhan and is a resident of the same village. She stated that
Nunulal Hembram was working in Chitranjan Locomotive
Works and he is alive and he had three brothers and the
youngest one is Nunulal Hembram. She stated that the other
two brothers have expired. She also stated that the documents
for service had come in the name of Nunulal Hembram and the
same had come after death of Sukul Hembram and it was
written in the said letter that Nunulal Hembram has expired
and accordingly, the accused approached the Mukhiya and
Gram Sevak and got the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram
prepared, although Nunulal Hembram is still alive. She was
also fully cross-examined and, in her cross-examination, she
reiterated that Sukul Hembram had taken the service of
Nunulal Hembram. She also identified the photographs of
Sukul Hembram which were exhibited as Exhibits-A and A/1.
The evidence of this witness clearly demonstrates that Sukul
Hembram had worked in place of Nunulal Hembram and she
has been able to know for 8 years that Sukul Hembram was
working in the name of Nunulal Hembram. She has disclosed
to the police that Nunulal Hembram is alive and Sukul
Hembram has expired. She has also stated that she worked in
Chitranjan Locomotive Works.
17. P.W.-5 is Babujan Murmu who deposed that Nunulal
Hembram is still alive, but Nepal Hembram and his mother
have got death certificate of Nunulal Hembram issued from
Mukhiya and Sarpanch. He also stated that the father of Nepal
Hembram was Sukul Hembram who was working in
Chitranjan Locomotive Works and after about 4 to 5 years of
joining the service, he came to know that Sukul Hembram was
working in the name of Nunulal Hembram and the villagers
knew this fact for the last 13 years that Sukul Hembram was
working in the name of Nunulal Hembram and after death of
the father of Nepal Hembram, when the post death benefits
were to be disbursed to Nepal Hembram and his mother, the
entire dispute cropped up.
18. P.W.-6 Md. Merajuddin Khan is the investigating officer
of the case. He deposed that he had taken over the investigation
of the case and had visited the places of occurrence and the
residence of the parties. He stated that he had recorded the
statements of Nunulal Hembram and other witnesses and
Nunulal Hembram was alive and his death certificate was got
issued by entering into conspiracy. He exhibited the charge-
sheet which was marked as Exhibit-6. He exhibited the seizure
list which included the photocopy of the voter list, ration card
issued in the name of Nunulal Hembram, death certificate
issued by the then Panchayat Sevak-Dilip Mandal (the
petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.409 of 2012) and death certificate
issued by the then Mukhiya-Surai Kisku. He stated that these
documents were handed over to him by Shyamlal Hembram
who is the son of the informant. The seizure list was marked as
Exhibit-7. He has supported the prosecution case by stating that
Nepal Hembram was working as son of Nunulal Hembram
which is incorrect. He has stated that Dilip Mandal is a Village
Level Worker and he is the only one Village Level Worker in
that particular area, who is responsible for making enquiry for
death certificate and for issuance of the same and he had issued
the said death certificate of Nunulal Hembram without
verification and he is also involved in the offence and therefore,
he submitted charge-sheet against Nepal Hembram, Dilip
Mandal and others.
19. P.W.-7 is Nimai Chandra Jha who is a Panchayat Sewak
of the area. He stated that the death certificate of Nunulal
Hembram was issued on the basis of an application which was
given by Nepal Hembram which contains his signature and he
identified his signature which was marked as Exhibit-8. He
stated that Surai Kisku was the then Mukhiya who had issued
the said death certificate by directing the Panchayat Sevak-Dilip
Mandal to issue the death certificate. The signature of Surai
Kisku was marked as Exhibit-9 and on the basis of such
direction, the then Panchayat Sevak-Dilip Mandal issued the
death certificate of Nunulal Hembram in Form-10 which was
prepared in two copies and one of them was handed to the
petitioner-Nepal Hembram and other was kept in the records.
He stated that the death certificate of the Informant being
A
Certificate No. dated 29.03.1997 was marked as Exhibit-10
196251
and the signature of Nepal Hembram on the death certificate
was marked as Exhibit-10/1. He was also been fully cross-
examined. He stated that he is the Panchayat Sevak for the last
6 to 7 months and he has no personal knowledge about the
case. He has stated that prior to issuance of death certificate,
proper enquiry is conducted and after satisfaction, the death
certificate is issued.
20. P.W.-8 is Shyam Lal Hembram who is the son of Nunulal
Hembram, the informant of the case. He deposed that Sukul
Hembram, the father of Nepal Hembram was working in the
name of his father-Nunulal Hembram. He exhibited the
photograph of Sukul Hembram who was working in Chitranjan
Locomotive Works. He stated that his father had no knowledge
that Sukul Hembram was working in his name and when Sukul
Hembram expired, he came to know about this fact.
21. P.W.-9 Basudeo Hembram is a resident of Village-
Chandradeepa and he deposed that around 10 years back,
Nunulal Hembram had filed a case and at that point of time,
Nunulal Hembram was alive and the reason for filing the case
was that Sukul Hembram was working in the name of Nunulal
Hembram, though Nunulal Hembram was the full brother of
Sukul Hembram and Nunulal Hembram came to know about
this fact only when Sukul Hembram had expired. He further
stated that he Nunulal Hembram had no knowledge about this
fact and came to know only after the death of Sukul Hembram,
the father of Nepal Hembram. He stated that the photographs
on the identity card (Exhibit-A) as well as on the medical card
(Exhibit-A/1) are the photographs of Sukul Hembram who is
the father of Nepal Hembram.
22. After considering the evidences on record, the learned
trial court recorded that on the basis of application filed by
Nepal Hembram, the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram
was issued. The application was filed by Nepal Hembram in
1997, although the trial court has recorded that it obtained the
signature of Nunulal Hembram, but the same is apparently an
error of record in view of the fact that the trial court's judgment
itself indicates that Exhibit-8 was the application filed by Nepal
Hembram for issuance of death certificate of Nunulal Hembram
and upon perusal of Lower Court Records also, it appears that
Exhibit-8 is the application filed by Nepal Hembram and not by
Nunulal Hembram. On the basis of this application, the then
Mukhiya issued the death certificate that Nunulal Hembram
has expired and his death certificate can be issued which was
marked as Exhibit-9 and thereafter, the death certificate i.e. Ext.-
10 was issued and thus, Exhibit-10 was issued on the basis of
Exhibits-8 and 9. The learned trial court further recorded that
from perusal of the death certificate, it appears that Nunulal
Hembram has expired on 04.03.1997 and by giving such
declaration, the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram was
issued. The learned trial court also recorded that the evidences
of P.Ws.- 3, 6 and 7 reflect that the death certificate was issued
on the application made by Nepal Hembram in connivance
with the then Mukhiya and the then Panchayat Sevak, although
Nunulal Hembram was alive and Sonamuni Hembram-wife of
Sukul Hembram and Surai Kisku-the then Mukhiya are not
facing trial, as they have already expired. The learned trial court
also recorded that the defence, during cross-examination, has
failed to create any doubt over Exhibit-A and A/1. The learned
trial court further recorded that the evidences adduced by
prosecution fully establish creation of forged death certificate
with an intention of cheating and using the same as genuine
and to insult the informant on the basis of the said certificate.
Accordingly, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners for
offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly.
23. The learned appellate court also considered the evidences
on record and referred to Exhibit-8 which is the application
dated 12.03.1994 filed by Nepal Hembram for issuance of death
certificate of Nunulal Hembram and recorded that Nepal
Hembram has written that his father was working in CLW,
Chitranjan who has expired on 04.03.1997 and accordingly, the
death certificate of his father Nunulal Hembram may be issued.
The learned appellate court also considered Exhibits-9 and 10
and gave concurrence finding of facts that the petitioner-Nepal
Hembram had applied for death certificate of Nunulal
Hembram, which was issued, although the father of Nepal
Hembram was Sukul Hembram who, in turn, was working in
Chitranjan Locomotive Works in the name of his brother i.e.
Nunulal Hembram and accordingly, the identity card and the
medical card being exhibited as Exhibit-A and A/1, do not help
the defence in any manner and the defence has not produced
any defence witness. Nepal Hembram and Dilip Mandal had
filed difference appeals before the learned appellate court
which were Cr. Appeal No. 05/2012 and Cr. Appeal No.
03/2012 respectively. Both the criminal appeals were dismissed
by the learned appellate court by separate Judgments, though
both the Judgments are dated 17.04.2012.
24. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
going through the impugned judgments and the lower court
records of the case, this Court finds that P.W.-1 (Informant) is
the most important witness of the case and he has fully
supported his version stated in his Complaint. In his evidence,
he has fully supported the facts and allegations that Sukul
Hembram (the father of the petitioner-Nepal Hembram) was
working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works in the name of the
Informant-Nunulal Hembram and after death of Sukul
Hembram, the petitioner-Nepal Hembram misrepresented
himself as the son of the Informant-Nunulal Hembram, but in
fact he was the son of Sukul Hembram and submitted
application for issuance of death certificate of Nunulal
Hembram who was then alive. The forged death certificate was
issued in the name of Nunulal Hembram which was an insult to
the Informant-Nunulal Hembram. Thereafter, the petitioner-
Nepal Hembram used the said forged death certificate as
genuine for getting the post-death benefits and also for getting
service in Chitranjan Locomotive Works. He has fully
supported the prosecution case against Nepal Hembram,
Sonamuni Hembram, Surai Kisku and Dilip Mandal. He has
exhibited a number of documentary evidences to disclose his
identity as Nunulal Hembram, being alive at the time of
issuance of the forged death certificate in his name, as well as to
disclose the identity of Sukul Hembram who was the father of
Nepal Hembram.
25. This Court further finds that P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-4, P.W.-
5, P.W.-6 (Investigating Officer), P.W.-8 and P.W.-9 have fully
corroborated the evidence of the Informant with regard to the
facts and allegations made against the petitioner-Nepal
Hembram.
26. This Court further finds that P.W.-6 (Investigating Officer
and P.W.-7 have supported and corroborated the facts that the
petitioner-Dilip Mandal was the then Panchayat Sevak, a
Village Level Worker in the area and on the direction of Surai
Kisku who was the then Mukhiya of the village, the petitioner-
Dilip Mandal had issued the forged death certificate in Form-10
in the name of Nunulal Hembram without verification and in
connivance with Nepal Hembram and other accused persons.
27. It has been specifically submitted by the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner in Cr. Revision no 409 of 2012 that no
charge has been framed for the offence under Section 120-B IPC
and accordingly, there is no question of conspiracy with the
prime accused i.e. Nepal Hembram who was the person who
had applied for issuance of the death certificate. It has come in
the defence evidence that prior to issuance of death certificate,
proper enquiry is conducted and after satisfaction, the death
certificate is issued. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Dilip
Mandal was the Village Level Worker and was instrumental in
issuance of the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram, although
Nunulal Hembram was alive and the petitioner- Dilip Mandal
was throughout aware that he was being tried on account of
being instrumental in issuance of death certificate of Nunulal
Hembram- the complainant, who was alive. In this background
the role of the petitioner -Dilip Mandal, being instrumental in
issuance of the death certificate has been proved by the
prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and non-framing of
specific charge under section 120B of IPC has no bearing in the
matter. The argument that Sukul Hembram was also known as
Nunulal Hembram is not based on any evidence on record and
is devoid of any merits. Rather it has been proved that Sukul
Hembram was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works in the
name of Nunulal Hembram by suppressing his real name as
Sukul Hembram.
28. So far as the other petitioner namely, Nepal Hembram is
concerned, the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram was
issued at his instance and there is no evidence on record to
show that Sukul Hembram, his father was also known as
Nunulal Hembram. Rather it has been proved that Sukul
Hembram was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works in the
name of Nunulal Hembram by suppressing his real name as
Sukul Hembram. Merely because Sukul Hembram was working
in the name of Nunulal Hembram in Chitranjan Locomotive
Works by suppressing his actual name i.e Sukul Hembram, the
same cannot be a justification for applying and issuance of
death certificate in the name of Nunulal Hembram , who was
alive. Thus, the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner Nepal Hembram, who tried to justify the issuance of
death certificate issued in the name of Nunulal Hembram, is
also devoid of any merits.
29. This Court also finds that all the prosecution witnesses
were fully cross-examined on behalf of the petitioners, but
nothing could be elicited from them to create doubt over their
testimonies.
30. This Court finds that all the essential ingredients to
constitute the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and
500 of the Indian Penal Code are satisfied against the petitioners
in the present case.
31. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have
carefully scrutinized all the materials on record and have
recorded concurrent findings of facts regarding commission of
the offences by the petitioners.
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the power of
revisional court in the case of Jagannath Choudhary and others
reported in (2002) 5 SCC 659 at para. 9 as under:-
"Incidentally the object of the revisional jurisdiction as
envisaged u/s 401 was to confer upon superior criminal
courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in
order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from
misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect
of proper precautions of apparent harshness of treatment
which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the
due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand
in some underserved hardship to individuals. (See in
this context the decision of this Court in Janata Dal Vs.
H.S. Chowdhary) . The main question which the High
Court has to consider in an application in revision is
whether substantial justice has been done. If however,
the same has been an appeal, the application would be
entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of
fact or law which he wishes to raise, but in revision the
only question is whether the court should interfere in the
interests of justice. Where the court concerned does not
appear to have committed any illegality or material
irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned
judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. If the
impugned order apparently is presentable, without any
such infirmity which may render it completely perverse
or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice,
interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction."
33. The revisional power is further explained in the case of
Ramesh Kumar Bajaj reported in (2009) 1 JCR 684 (Jhar) at
para. 13 as follows:
"It is well settled that revisional interference may be
justified where:
(i) the decision is grossly erroneous.
(ii) there is no compliance with the provisions of law.
(iii) the finding of fact affecting the decision is not
based on evidence.
(iv) material evidence of the parties is not considered
and
(v) judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
perversely."
34. In the case Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4
SCC 649, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the
scope of revisional power held in paragraph-5 as follows:
"5. The High Court in revision was exercising
supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and,
therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-
appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining
whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the
learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions
Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court
reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of
satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of
the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate
courts and that the finding of fact was not
unreasonable or perverse."
35. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings and
considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this
Court is of the considered view that the learned courts below
have passed well-reasoned judgements considering every
aspect of the matter and every argument advanced on behalf of
the petitioners. There being no perversity or illegality in the
impugned judgements, no interference is called for.
36. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid findings, both the
criminal revision petitions are hereby dismissed.
37. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
38. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are cancelled.
39. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
40. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to
the court concerned.
41. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the
learned court below through "email/FAX".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
