Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(HP) 365

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUSHIL KUKREJA, JJ.

State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan & others – Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 220 of 2015
Decided On : 25-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Raj Negi and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocates General.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, Respondents No. 2 & 3 in person.

The appellate court upholds the presumption of innocence and requires compelling grounds to overturn a trial court's acquittal, highlighting the importance of reasonable perspectives on evidence evaluation.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 195, 196, 467, 471, 120B - Appeal against acquittal - The trial court acquitted the accused of charges related to perjury and forgery, citing lack of evidence for conspiratorial actions - The appellate court reaffirms the need for compelling reasons to disturb an acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and proper evidence appreciation. (Paras 10, 14, 33)

(B) Acquittal Standard - The appellate court highlighted that the trial judge's view regarding evidence credibility and presumption of innocence must be respected unless compelling reasons for reversal are shown. (Paras 10.1 and 10.2)

Facts of the case:
The case involved allegations of perjury related to medical documents in an earlier trial. The accused were acquitted due to insufficient evidence linking them to forgery or conspiracy.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the trial court's decision was reasonable and based on proper evaluation of the evidence.

Issues: The key issues included the sufficiency of evidence for perjury charges and the standard for overturning an acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court stressed the primacy of the trial court's findings unless clearly erroneous, reasserting the double presumption in favor of the accused after acquittal.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 17-S/7 of 2007, whereby the accused persons, namely Dr. Ajay Kumar Sethi (since deceased), Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan, Sanjay Bhardwaj and Dev Varat Sharma (respondents No. 1 to 3,herein) were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 195 ,196, 467, 471 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short “IPC”).

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under:
2(a). The accused Sanjay Bhardwaj lodged FIR No. 170 dated 30.10.2000, at Police Station Barotiwala, under Sections 307 , 364, 506 read with Section 34 IPC against Sarvsheel Mago, Aman Mago and Komal Mago but after conducting investigation, the police prepared cancellation report in the aforesaid FIR. However, on a private complaint filed by accused Sanjay Bhardwaj against the aforesaid Sarvsheel Mago, Aman Mago and Komal Mago, in respect of the same incident, disagreeing with the cancellation report, learned SDJM, Nalagarh, vide order dated 02.09.2002, took cognizance and committed the case for trial. The learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Solan, vide judgment dated 12.10.2004 acquitted the accused Sarvsheel Mago, Aman Mago and Komal Mago.
2(b). After about one and half years thereof, on 19.06.2006 Sarvsheel Mago filed a complaint under Section 34 0 Cr.P.C. before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Solan against Dr. Ajay Kumar Sethi (since deceased), Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan, Sanjay Bhardwaj and Dev Varat Sharma for taking appropriate proceedings against them as per provisions of Section 34 0 Cr.P.C. for committing perjury. The allegations against the accused persons were that all of them in conspiracy with one another committed perjury before Fast Track Court, Solan, during the trial of case titled State of H.P. vs. Sarvsheel Mago & others. On 29.09.2006,on the complaint filed by Sarvsheel Mago, the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Solan, ordered to conduct an inquiry by forming an opinion that offences punishable under Section 195 , 196, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC appeared to have been committed by the accused persons Dr. Ajay Kumar Sethi (since deceased), Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan, Sanjay Bhardwaj and Dev Varat Sharma in relation to the documents produced in evidence given in the Court during trial of case titled as State of H.P. vs. Sarvsheel Mago and others bearing no. 30/FT/7 of 2004/2003. The Court was further of the opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into these offences. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order reads as under:

“In view of the above facts and circumstances this court is of the opinion that offences punishable u/s 195, 196, 467, 471 and 120B appear to have been committed by the respondents in relation to the documents produced and evidence given in this court during trial of case titled State of H.P. vs. Sarvsheel Mago and others 30FT/7 of 2004/2003 (file presently lying in Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in appeal). The court is further of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into these offences.”

3. Thereafter a complaint was filed in writing by the Reader of the Court of learned Additional Sessions judge (FTC), Solan, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan.

4. The said complaint was assigned to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Solan, and vide order dated 30.04.2007, after inquiring into the facts of the case, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, for trial, which was ultimately assigned to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan (hereinafter referred to as trial court).

5. On consideration, the accused were ch