Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Mohan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 196 of 2012
Decided On : 15-05-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 416, 417, 420, 465, 468, and 471 - Conviction for cheating and impersonation - Accused used another's matriculation certificate to secure employment - Courts upheld conviction based on evidence of identity and misrepresentation - No evidence of forgery found - Prosecution's reliance on photocopies of documents was deemed acceptable as no objection was raised at trial. (Paras 1, 8, 36)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 - Accused denied charges but failed to provide credible evidence to support his claims - The courts found the testimonies of witnesses credible despite claims of enmity. (Paras 5, 36)
(C) Probation of Offenders Act - Benefit denied due to the nature of the crime and the deception involved in securing public employment. (Paras 37, 38)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with using the matriculation certificate of another individual to secure a job, leading to his conviction for cheating. The prosecution presented multiple witnesses and documents to establish the identity and misrepresentation.
Findings of Court:
The courts found sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction, concluding that the accused misrepresented himself to secure employment.
Issues: The main issues included the identity of the accused, the admissibility of photocopies of documents, and the appropriateness of denying probation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the accused's actions constituted a serious offense of impersonation and cheating, justifying the conviction and the denial of probation.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 22.8.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 31.12.2005 and order of sentence dated 17.1.2006, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were-upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant Jagjit Singh (PW8) filed an application (Ex.PW8/A) before CBI, Dharamshala asserting that his uncle Babu Ram (accused) was serving on the certificate of some other person. Babu Ram had passed the matriculation examination in the year 1959 in the third division from Government High School Rakkar. He served in Khaddar Bhandar, where he stole the certificate of Mohan Singh (PW5). Mohan Singh had passed the matriculation examination in the second division. He got the record of High School, Rakkar stolen. The police registered the FIR (Ex.PW11/A) based on the complaint. SI Purshotam (PW16) conducted the investigation. He recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. He obtained the matriculation certificate of the accused (Ex.PW12/A), the certificates of Mohan Singh (Ex.P2 and Ex.P3), the revenue record (Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B), the certificate from the Panchayat Secretary (Ex.PW7/A), orders (Ex.PA and Ex.PB) from DEO, Dharamshala, the report (Mark-P1) and certificates (Ex.P3 to Ex.P8). He recorded the statements of the remaining witnesses as per their version. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court after the completion of the investigation.
3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 416, 417, 420, 465 and 471 of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to prove its case. Ami Chand (PW1) is the brother of the accused. Amarjeet (PW2) handed over the record of Mohan Singh. Leela Devi (PW3) is the sister-in-law of the accused. Kulwant Singh (PW4) produced a school leaving certificate. Mohan Singh (PW5) was working in Khaddar Bhandar, whose matriculation certificate was misplaced. Rakesh (PW6) produced the record. Naresh Kumar (PW7) searched for the date of birth of Babu Ram but could not trace it. Jagjit Singh (PW8) is the informant. Pritam Chand (PW7-A) produced the record of Mohan Singh. Satinder Kumar (PW9) produced Shajra Nasab. Narinder Kumar (PW10) produced the certificate and the record from DEO Office. Satwant Singh (PW11) signed the FIR. Surinder Kumar (PW12) produced the school leaving certificate of the accused. Nathu Ram (PW13) prepared the challan. Ram Lal Shashtri (PW14) produced the record from the school. Ramesh Bhardwaj (PW15) issued the certificate regarding the date of birth of the accused. SI Purshottam (PW16) conducted the investigation.
5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case in its entirety. He stated that the name of his father was Relu Ram alias Shankar Ram. He passed his matriculation examination from Government High School, Gandhar. He admitted that he had worked with Mohan Singh in Khaddar Bhandar. He stated that he underwent teacher training at Solan in 1973 based on his educational certificates. He passed the matriculation examination in 1973. The informant and his family members are inimical with him. Litigation is pending between the parties. A false case was made due to enmity between the parties.
6. Statement of Rakesh Kumar (DW1) and Balwant Singh (DW2) were recorded in defence.
7. Learned Tri
AI
The court upheld the conviction for impersonation and cheating, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence and the inadmissibility of objections raised at the appellate stage.
Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC Section 397 is limited; no re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity in concurrent conviction for assaulting public servant, causing simple hurt and damaging pu....
The prosecution failed to establish essential elements of forgery and use of a forged document, leading to the appellant's conviction being unsustainable.
The certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act must accompany the electronic record when it is produced in evidence, and the prosecution is obligated to supply all documents upon which relian....
Photocopies of public documents are admissible as evidence if authenticated by testimony, mitigating previous rejections based on technical evidence rules.
Secondary evidence is only admissible under specific conditions outlined in Section 65 of the Evidence Act; blanket permission for secondary evidence without details of missing originals is erroneous....
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
