Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Jogesh Kumar Gomber - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.R. No. 86 of 2007
Decided On : 08-09-2016
Forgery - Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 419, 466, 468, 471, 120B - The court acquitted the petitioner due to lack of evidence linking him with the commission of the alleged offenses. The findings of conviction were deemed perverse and not borne out from the records of the case. The court also highlighted the weakness of relying solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert without substantial corroboration.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with other co-accused, forged documents to cheat the State Government and secure a government appointment for another accused. The trial court convicted the petitioner for offenses under IPC Sections 419, 466, 468, 471, and 120B, but the petitioner appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to produce evidence linking the petitioner with the alleged offenses. It highlighted that key witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, and the documents did not contain the petitioner's name. The court also noted that the findings of conviction were not borne out from the records of the case and were deemed perverse.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to establish the petitioner's involvement in the alleged forgery and criminal conspiracy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the conviction could not be based solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert without substantial corroboration. It also highlighted the necessity of proving the meeting of minds for a criminal conspiracy and the lack of evidence in this regard.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the judgment of conviction, and set aside the appellate court's decision. Any fine amount deposited by the petitioner was ordered to be released to him.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The judgment emphasizes that a conviction cannot be solely based on the opinion of a handwriting expert without substantial corroborative evidence. The expert’s opinion is considered only as corroborative and not sufficient on its own to establish guilt (!) (!) .
The court highlights the importance of establishing a meeting of minds for criminal conspiracy. Merely having knowledge or discussion of a plan is insufficient; there must be an agreement or scheme between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or to use illegal means (!) (!) .
The evidence presented by the prosecution was found to be inadequate to link the petitioner with the alleged offenses. Witness testimonies did not support the prosecution’s case, and the documents did not contain the petitioner’s name, indicating a lack of substantive evidence (!) (!) .
The findings of conviction by the lower courts were deemed perverse and not supported by the case records. The courts failed to appreciate that the prosecution did not confront the petitioner with his alleged signatures and relied heavily on the expert opinion, which alone is insufficient for conviction (!) (!) .
The court noted that the expert’s opinion was based on carbon signatures and did not involve chemical or water tests, making it a weak and corroborative piece of evidence at best. The absence of other substantive evidence further undermines the conviction (!) (!) .
The court clarified the scope of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that it does not entail re-evaluation of evidence but only interference if the findings are grossly unreasonable, perverse, or based on no material (!) .
The judgment ultimately quashed the conviction and set aside the appellate court’s decision, ordering the release of any fine deposited by the petitioner. The court found that the conviction was not sustainable due to the lack of evidence establishing conspiracy or forgery beyond reasonable doubt (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way this revision petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court be set-aside and the appellant may please be acquitted of all the changes by way of acceptance of this appeal, in the interest of justice.”
2. The case of the prosecution was that through accused Ashok Kumar Chaudhary Government of Himachal Pradesh received a copy of order dated 25.09.2002 purportedly passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India alongwith a letter from Rashtrpati Bhawan, New Delhi, whereby accused Ashok Kumar Chaudhary was recommended as appointee to the post of Joint Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Letter of recommendation for appointment was signed by accused Surender Singh Bhatia as authorized signatory and accused Jogesh Kumar Gomber (present petitioner) as authorized signatory. Further as per the prosecution, accused Ashok Kumar Chaudhary visited the office of Shri B.S. Nanta, Special Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in connection with his appointment many times. He also visited other high officials in this regard. However, as there was no intimation to the State Government regarding so called orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, prima facie, the entire episode was found to be suspicious and accordingly Shri Subhash Negi, the then Secretary (Personnel), to the government of Himachal Pradesh telephonically contacted Rashtrpati Bhawan, New Delhi and it was gathered that no such recommendation was ever made in favour of accused Ashok Kumar Chaudhary for being appointed as Joint Secretary. According to the prosecution, accused Ashok Kumar Chaudhary alongwith other co-accused including the present petitioner connived with each other and forged documents in order to cheat the State Government so that accused Ashok Kumar Chaudhary be appointed as Joint Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
3. On the basis of complaint lodged by Special Secretary to the Government of H.P., FIR was registered against the accused persons and investigation was carried out. After the completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima-facie case was found against the accused, accordingly, they were charged for offences punishable under Sections 419, 466, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Learned trial Court held that the prosecution was able to substantiate the guilt of accused Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and the present petitioner while acquitting accused S.S. Bhatia. Learned trial Court convicted Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 466, 468 and 471 of IPC and sentenced the petitioner alongwith Ashok Kumar Chaudhary to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC. Learned trial Court further sentenced both the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 466 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC.
5. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court and learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 28.06.2007, dismissed the appeal so filed by the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction passed against him by the learned trial Court.
6. Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner h
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
