The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Aatmaram @ Puranlal
2022 Latest Caselaw 15430 MP

                         --1--



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
                       BEFORE

         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

                          &

   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)

           HEARD ON 06th SEPTEMBER, 2022

      ORDER PASSED ON 23rd OF NOVEMBER, 2022



          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22412/2022

Between:-
THE     STATE  OF  MADHYA     PRADESH
THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
AARAKSHI KENDRA SOKATCH, TEHSIL
SONKATCH DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                      .....PETITIONER
(SHRI BHASKAR AGRAWAL, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

AND

1. AATMARAM @ PURANLAL S/O DHULJI
BALAI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE GRAM TALOD
TEHSIL SONKATCH DISTRICT DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BHANWARSINGH S/O TAKHATSINGH
SENDHAV, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, GRAM
TALOD TEHSIL SONKATCH DISTRICT
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                                    --2--




      This application comes on for admission this day, JUSTICE AMAR
NATH (KESHARWANI) passed the following:

                                 ORDER

Heard on the application for the grant of special leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (02) This application has been filed to grant special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 07/12/2021 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sonkatch District Dewas (M.P) in Sessions Trial No.100000/2014, whereby the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted.

(03) Brief facts of the case are that a typed complaint application (Ex.P-2) dated 25.04.2012 in the name of Puranlal R/O Talod, without a signature, was sent to Divisional Commandant Home-guard, Division -Ujjain, District commandant Home guard Dewas, Collector Dewas, D.G.P. Home Guard, Jabalpur and Superintendent of Police Dewas, submitting that a person named Aatmaram/Respondent no.1 is working in Home-guard office by representing himself as Puranlal. Respondent no.1 has got the job at Home -Guard office and his name was entered as Sainik No.288, by obtaining the mark sheet of Class 8th of his brother Puranlal, whereas Respondent no.1 is only 6th class pass out and has fraudulently taken the mark sheet from his brother Puranlal to register his name at Employment Office, and obtained the Job at Home-guard office, only on the basis of the mark sheet of his brother Puranlal. Respondent no.1 deceived the Government by receiving salary and other facilities based on forged documents such as a Ration Card, Affidavit, Voter I.D, and other

--3--

documents recorded in the name of Puranlal. The allegation against Respondent no.2 Bhawar Singh is that on 25.04.2012 at Village Sonkatch, District Dewas as well as other places he prepared forged documents, viz, Ration Card, Voter I.D, and other documents in the name of Respondent no.1 Aatmaram @ Puranlal.

(04) After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 419,420,467,468, and 471 of I.P.C. before the J.M.F.C. having jurisdiction. After that, the case was committed to the sessions court Dewas and then the same was made over to the Sessions Court, District- Dewas for trial. The trial court framed the charges against respondent no.1/Aatmaram under Sections 419,420,467,468, and 471 of I.P.C. and framed charges against respondent no.2 Bhanwar Singh under Section 467,468 and 471 of I.P.C., who denied the charges and pleaded for trial. After evaluating the evidence that came on record the trial court acquitted Respondent no.1 and 2 by the impugned judgment dated 07/12/2021. (05) Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 07/12/2021, the applicant/State has filed this application for a grant of special leave to appeal.

(06) Learned counsel for the appellant/State submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence in the right perspective and hence, committed an error in acquitting the respondents hence, the impugned order of acquittal is liable to be set aside and prays to grant leave to appeal to the applicant/State in the interest of justice against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 07/12/2021 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, District-Dewas in Session Trial No.100000/2014.

--4--

(07) We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned Govt. Advocate and gone through the impugned judgment and perused the record of the trial court.

(08) The allegation against Respondent no.1 is that he has represented himself as Puran S/o Dhulji though he is not Puran S/o Dhoolji but he is another son of Dhulji who is mentioned as Aatmaram. But he obtained the educational certificates of his elder brother Puran and based on the said Education Certificate he got a job at Home Guard and his name was entered as Sainik No.288

(09) The allegation against Respondent no.2 Bhawar is that he prepared forged documents, viz, Ration Card, Voter I.D, and other documents in the name of Respondent no.1 Aatmaram, @ Puranlal.

(10) The prosecution has examined 23 witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence as Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-75 and Article A-1 to A-

5. Respondents/accused have examined four witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence Ex-D-1 to D-15.

(11) Written complaint Ex-P-2 on which investigation has been initiated is unsigned. Though as facts mentioned in Ex-P-2 the typed complaint was sent by Puranlal. The prosecution has examined Narmada Bai (PW-14) as the mother of Respondent no.1/Aatmaram @ Puranlal and elder brother Ramratan (PW-9) and another brother as PW-13 who is said to be Puranlal but he has described his name as Aatmaram before the trial Court. PW-9, PW-13, and PW-14 have not supported the prosecution case before the Trial Court and they were declared hostile and cross-examined but they did not support the prosecution in the cross-examination also and denied the

--5--

statements recorded during the investigation under Section 161 of Cr.P.C as Ex.P-19 and Ex.P-20. Dayaram (PW-7) is said to be the resident of the same village as Respondent no.1, but PW-7 has not supported the prosecution case before the Trial Court and denied the statement Ex.P-11 recorded during the investigation under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Mahesh (PW-8) has stated in his chief examination before the trial Court that he is a resident of village Talode and his primary education was done at Government Primary School, Talode and stated that Puranlal S/o Dhulji (respondent no.1)was his class fellow and at present, he is in the service of home guard and resident of village Talode and he knows him as Puranlal because he is resident of the same village.

(12) Thereby, Mahesh (PW-8) has stated that the accused who has been prosecuted as Aatamaram is actually Puranlal. The statement of PW-8 was not challenged by the prosecution, therefore, the statement of Mahesh (PW-

8) was unchallenged. Defence witnesses Dheeraj Singh (DW-1) and Mool Giri Goswami (DW-2) have stated in their chief examination before the trial Court that the accused who has been prosecuted as Aatmaram was actually Puranlal and during his examination before the trial Court DW-1 has produced the photograph (Ex.D-11) and stated that the accused who was prosecuted as Aatmaram is actually Puranlal who was his class fellow and stated that his teacher Moolgiri Goswami is also present in photograph (Ex.D-11). Moolgiri Goswami (DW-2) has also supported the statement of Dheeraj Singh (DW-1).

(13) As per Ex.P-70 Puranlal S/o Dhoolji was appointed as Home guard Sainik on 21.04.1991 and the prosecution has not filed any document prior

--6--

to the date of his appointment in Home guard service which proves that Respondent no.1 was Aatmaram and he was represented as Puranlal and got appointment in the services.

(14) Though the prosecution has seized the ration card(Ex.P-23), application co-declaration form for the ration card (Ex.P-24) and application co-declaration form for ration card documents (Ex.P-25) as per seizure memo (Ex.P-15) from Respondent No.2/co-accused Bhawar Singh. As per the prosecution case Ration card Ex.p-23 and application co- declaration form for ration card Ex.P-25 were related to Respondent No.1 and the signature of Respondent No.1 existed as Atmaram and photograph of Respondent No.1 was affixed in Ex.p-23 and 25 which are said to be filled up by Respondent No.1. Application co-declaration form for ration card (Ex.P-24) is said to be filled up by the Puranlal (PW-13) and photograph of PW-13 was affixed on Ex.P-24. Some other documents were also seized during the investigation which were said to be signed by Respondent No.1 i.e. admitted signature but the prosecution has not sent the documents Ex.P-23 and 25 to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signature or handwritting specimen of Respondent No.1 that the signature in Ex-P-23 and P-25 and admitted signature of respondent no.1/accused Aatmaram @ Puranlal is the same.

(15) Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot [email protected] Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600 in paragraph 334 that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of legal proof.

--7--

(16) In the case of Keshardan v. State of M.P. 2005 (3) MPLJ 550 the co-ordinate Bench of this High Court held that credence to the evidence of the defence witness should be given in the same manner as it is being given to prosecution witness. The relevant part of para 9 is reproduced as below:-

"9.Apart from this, there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that at the relevant point of time the appellant was not present at the spot. In this context he has invited my attention to the testimony of D.W. 1 Narayanlal and D.W. 2 K.S. Rathore. Both these persons are Government officials under whom the appellant was working. Both of them in single voice have stated that on the relevant day appellant was assigned the duty to administer polio drops to innocent children of village Nayapura of Tahsil Manasa. It is well settled in law that credence to the evidence of defence witnesses should be given in the same manner as it is being given to prosecution witnesses. Merely the defence has examined witnesses in order to prove that the appellant is innocent, testimony of those witnesses cannot be thrown like waste paper in the dust bin............"

(17) Though the documents Ex.P-23, Ex.P-24, Ex.P-25, Ex.P-28, Ex.P- 47, Ex.P-51, Ex.P-52C, Ex.P-65, and Ex.D-8 creates doubt, but it is a well- settled principle of law that prosecution has to prove his own case beyond the reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt to be given to the accused persons.

(18) In the case of The State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohanlal and others, (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 573, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 3 as under:-

--8--

"3. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. This Court in JT (2004) 2 SC 172: the State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, has while reiterating the view expressed in the earlier cases for the past two decades emphasized the necessity, duty and obligation of the High Court to record reasons in disposing of such cases. The hall mark of a judgment/order and exceted of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons has been always insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. The fact that the entertaining of an appeal at the instance of the State against an order of acquittal for an effective consideration of the same on merits is made subject to the preliminary exercise of obtaining of leave to appeal from the High Court, is no reason to consider it as an appeal of any inferior quality or grade, when it has been specifically and statutorily provided for or sufficient to obviate and dispense with the obvious necessity to record reasons. Any judicial power has to be judiciously exercised and the mere fact that discretion is vested with the court/forum to exercise the same either way does not constitute any licence to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be conveyed by the well known saying - 'varying according to the chancellors foot. Arbitrariness has been always held to be the anathema of judicial exercise of any power, all the more so when such orders are amenable to challenge further before higher forums. The State does not in pursuing or conducting a criminal case or an appeal espouses any right of its own but really vindicate the cause of society at large, to prevent recurrence as well as punish offences and offenders respectively, in order to preserve orderliness in society and avert anarchy, by upholding rule of law. The provision for seeking leave to appeal is in order to ensure that no frivolous appeals are filed against orders of acquittal, as a matter of course, but that does not enable the High Court to mechanically refuse to grant

--9--

leave by mere cryptic or readymade observations, as in this case, (the court does not find any error), with no further on the face of it, indication of any application of mind whatsoever. All the more so when the orders of the High Court are amenable for further challenge before this Court. Such ritualistic observations and summary disposal which has the effect of, at times, and as in this case, foreclosing statutory right of appeal, though a regulated one cannot be said to be a proper and judicial manner disposing of judiciously the claim before courts. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind. All the more so, when refusal of leave to appeal has the effect of foreclosing once and for all a scope for scrutiny of the judgment of the trial court even at the instance and hands of the First Appellate Court. The need for recording reasons for the conclusion arrived at by the High Court, to refuse to grant leave to appeal, in our view, has nothing to do with the fact that the appeal envisaged under Section 378 Cr.P.C. is conditioned upon the seeking for and obtaining of the leave from the court. This court has repeatedly laid down that as the First Appellate Court the High Court even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal was also entitled and obliged as well to scan through and if need be reappreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, in the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal."

--10--

(19) In the case of Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Ventak Reddy, 2013 (Criminal Law Journal) 4618 Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"6. This Court has persistently emphasised that there are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."

(20) In case of State of Karnataka Vs. Suvarnamma and another, (2015) 1 SCC,323, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "in an appeal against the acquittal, if a possible view has been taken, no interference is required, but if the view taken is not legally sustainable, the Court has ample powers to interfere with the order of acquittal". (21) Respondent No.2 Bhawar Singh has made correction in register (Ex.P/47) on the basis of application and affidavit submitted by the respondent No.1 Aatamaram @ Puranlal, Aatmaram (PW-13). Narmada Bai (PW/14) and the resolution (Ex-D-7) passed by the Gram Panchayat, Talode Janpad Panchayat Sonkantch. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 has made forged entries in public documents. Therefore, charges framed against respondent No.2 is also not proved beyond the reasonable doubt.

--11--

(22) After going through the impugned judgment and record of the trial court, as discussed above, we are of the opinion, that the trial court has considered the oral and documentary evidence placed before them and considered the legal provisions of law and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. With aforesaid discussion and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of C.P.C., thereby the application stands rejected.

      (VIVEK RUSIA )                       (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
         JUDGE                                           JUDGE

             Digitally signed by
das
             REENA PARTHO
             SARKAR
             Date: 2022.11.23
             16:35:22 +05'30'