Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I.D. DUA AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
Ram Narain, Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1970, D/- 31-1-1973.
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 467,120B,468,420,409 and 477 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 561-A and 540 - Commit offences of forgery – Conspiracy - In this appeal by special leave from judgment of High Court appellant, challenges his conviction for offences under Sections 467 and 120B, I.P.C - He, along with three others, had been committed for trial in Court of Sessions Judge, Kota on ten charges for offences under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120B, I.P.C - One between the months at said one house entered into a conspiracy with others, to commit offences of forgery using forged documents as genuine and of cheating public, Municipal Board and Government in respect of sale of some pieces of land - Whether or not maxims illustrated apply to a given case before it – Held, court now turn to the charge of criminal conspiracy under S. 120-B I.P.C. as a separate and distinct offence independent of offence under Section 467, I.P.C - No doubt in almost every case of conspiracy it is generally a matter of inference, direct independent evidence being seldom, if ever, forthcoming - But inferences are normally deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of apparent criminal purpose in common between them - Of such criminal acts the evidence in case under appeal has not been accepted by court - Evidence of the approver (P. W. 1) who would of course be competent to prove substantive charge of conspiracy, which has not been believed by court with respect to forgery is not easy to accept with respect to the charge of conspiracy - His version with regard to it is far from convincing - Though he claims to have prepared 200 pattas and order sheets, evidence regarding only four was led and that too not trustworthy - For first time he disclosed the story to police after arrest in expectation of help from them - On his evidence and uncorroborated as it is, charge of conspiracy as framed cannot be sustained - Court have no option but to allow this appeal, quash appellant s conviction and acquit him - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
DUA, J. :- In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court Ram Narain, appellant, challenges his conviction for the offences under Sections 467 and 120B, I.P.C. He, along with three others, had been committed for trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota on ten charges for offences under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120B, I.P.C. It is not necessary to reproduce all the charges and it would suffice if we set out the charges under Ss. 467 and 120B, I.P.C. because by the impugned judgment of the High Court the appellant s conviction was sustained only on charges under these two sections. Those charges are :
"(1). That you between the months of November, 1959 to January, 1960, at your house at Dadvada entered into a conspiracy with Sarvashri Madan Mohan, Badriprasad and Bakshi Gajpatsingh and others, to commit offences of forgery using forged documents as genuine and of cheating the public, Municipal Board and the Government in respect of the sale of some pieces of land belonging earlier to the Gram Panchayat Khandgawari in favour of Moolsingh, Mukatbeharilal and Surajsingh and that you did some act to wit forged the proceedings of the Pattas in favour of the abovesaid persons and the signatures and the thumb impressions of the Panchas of the defunct Gram Panchayat and made false entries in the Cash Book of the said Panchayat of the year 1957-58 at pages 42 and 45 and affixed the seal of that Gram Panchayat and put your signatures on the Pattas so forged, all in the capacity of the Surpanch of that Gram Panchayat besides agreement to commit the offences under Ss. 467, 468 and 420, of the I.P.C. punishable with rigorous imprisonment for over two years and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120B of the I.P.C. and within my cognizance.
(2) That during the same period, you forged Patta proceedings in antidates in respect of the sale of land 30 x 35 belonging earlier to the defunct Gram Panchayat Kandgaonri in favour of Shri Surajsingh and put your own signatures on the forged document purporting to be valuable security to wit, the patta in favour of Surajsingh and gave it to Shri Surajsingh and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 467 of the I.P.C. and within my cognizance.
... ... ... ...
(5) That during the same period, you forged patta proceedings in antedates in respect of the sale of land 50 x 50 belonging earlier to the defunct Gram Panchayat Khandgaonri in favour of Mukat Behari and put your signatures on the forged document purporting to be a valuable security to wit the patta in favour of Mukat Beharilal and gave it to Shri Mukat Behari and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
... ... ... ...
(8) That during the same period you forged patta proceedings in antedates in respect of the sale of land 30 x 30 belonging earlier to the defunct Gram Panchayat Khandgaonri in favour of Shri Moolsingh and put your own signatures on the forged document purporting to be valuable security to wit the patta in favour of Shri Moolsingh and gave it to Shri Moolsingh and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467 of the I.P.C. and within my cognizance."
2. Village Khand Gawadi had before October, 1958 a panchayat of which Gangaram (P.W. 3) was the Sarpanch and the appellant its Up-Sarpanch. In the months of April and May, 1958 the appellant officiated for the sarpanch because the latter (Gangaram) was busy in connection with his daughter s marriage. By means of a gazette notification (No. 11288/F.I. (a) 48 L 59/A/55 dated 16-10-58) the Rajasthan Government extended the limits of the municipal council, Kota, amongst other village, to Khand Gawadi also. The Municipal Council took over charges from the Gram Panchayat of this village on January 7, 1959. According to the prosecution version during the months of November, 1959 to January, 1960, long after the village panch
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
