Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Mohan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
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 S
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.
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....
Documents presented as secondary evidence must satisfy foundational requirements and cannot be admitted without proper explanation for the non-production of originals.
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
