Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 917
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Peer Mohammad Azad – Appellant
Vs.
State of H.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 611-613 of 2017
Decided On : 13-09-2018
Anoop Chitkara, Adv., Syed Wasiq, Adv., Ab Majid, Adv., Sheetal Vayas, Adv., Hemant Vaid, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in proving criminal offenses, and the court's duty to thoroughly evaluate the evidence presented.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Offenses - IPC 376, 406, 420, 494, 495, 496, 467, 468, 471, 120-B - The court acquitted the accused of the offenses charged based on the mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a businesswoman, accused the defendants of cheating and forgery. She alleged that the accused deceived her into marriage, misappropriated her money, and cheated her by pretending to be single when he was already married.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence presented by the complainant to be unreliable and filled with inconsistencies and improvements. The court held that the findings of conviction were based on mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record.
Issues: The main issue was the credibility of the complainant's accusations against the accused, including misappropriation of funds and deception regarding marital status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the unreliable and inconsistent testimony of the complainant, which led to the conclusion that the findings of conviction were based on mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record.
Final Decision: The court acquitted all the accused of the offenses charged and ordered their release from judicial custody, with any deposited fine to be refunded to them.
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
All the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, as, all arise, from, a common verdict rendered, by the learned trial Court.
2. The learned trial Court convicted besides sentenced the accused/convicts, namely, Gulam Hassan Hakim, Gulzar Ahmad Hakim, and, Peer Mohammad Azad, in, the hereinafter extracted manner:-
| Sr. No. | Name of the accused | Under Section | Sentence | Fine | In default of payment of fine |
| 1.
| Gulam Hassan Hakim
| U/s 376 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years | Rs.10,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 3 months |
| U/s 406 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month | ||
| U/s 420 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month | ||
| U/s 494 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month | ||
| U/s 495 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for seven years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for three months | ||
| U/s 496 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month | ||
| U/S 467 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 7- years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for thee months | ||
| U/s 468 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month | ||
| U/s 471 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month | ||
| U/S 120- B, IPC | Simple imprisonment for 6 months | --- | --- | ||
| 2.
| Gulzar Ahmad Hakim
| U/s 406 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month |
| U/s 420 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month | ||
| U/s 495 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for seven years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for three months | ||
| U/s 496 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month | ||
| U/S 467 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 7- years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for thee months | ||
| U/s 468 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month | ||
| U/s 471 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month | ||
| U/S 120- B, IPC | Simple imprisonment for 6 months | --- | --- | ||
| 3.
| Peer Mohammad Azad
| U/s 495 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for seven years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for three months |
| U/s 496 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month | ||
| U/S 467 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 7- years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for thee months | ||
| U/s 468 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month | ||
| U/s 471 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years | Rs.5,000/- | Simple imprisonment for 1 month | ||
| U/S 120- B, IPC | Simple imprisonment for 6 months | --- | --- |
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The facts relevant to decide the instant case that on 24.10.1995 complainant/prosecutrix lodged a complaint against accused Gulam Hassal Hakim, Gulzar Ahmad and Peer Mohammad Azad to the effect that she was carrying the business of export and import and was living in India for the last 14 years. That during this period she visited her native place in California 64 times and in September, 2001 she came to Mcleodganj and stayed in Mount View for a night and, thereafter, stayed in Hotel Annex Him Queen Mcleodganj. That Gulam Hassan invited her for dinner and introduced himself as a tourist guide and complainant stayed in Hotel Annex Him Queen for three days. That accused Gulam Hassan told her that he sells Kashmiri carpets and upon request of the complainant saw her carpets and had chosen two carpets. That complainant encashed her traveler cheque from Western Union and paid 1200 US dollars to Gulam Hassan towar
