IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Anil Kumar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of U. T. , Chandigarh – Respondent
CRR-2058-2022
Decided On : 09-12-2022
Impersonation - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120-B, 419, 420 - The court discussed the evidence of impersonation, possession of documents, and conspiracy, and upheld the conviction and sentence under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC. The court found no reason to interfere with the judgments of the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted for impersonation and sentenced under Sections 120-B, 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for impersonating in an examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC, finding no reason to interfere with the lower court's judgments.
Issues: The issues revolved around the evidence of impersonation, possession of documents, and conspiracy, and the petitioners' contention of false implication and lack of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the evidence of impersonation and possession of documents to be conclusive, rejecting the petitioners' contentions of false implication and lack of evidence.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the sentence was modified to 1 1/2 years considering the petitioners' conduct and the time elapsed since the occurrence.
JUDGMENT
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - By virtue of this common order, this Court proposes to dispose of two petitions i.e. bearing CRR-2058-2022 titled as Anil Kumar Versus State of U.T., Chandigarh and CRR-2135-2022 titled as Harpreet Singh Versus State of U.T., Chandigarh.
2. The present revision petitions have been preferred against the judgment dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide which the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh has been dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Shri Yogesh Kumar, Clerk, CRA, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh gave a complaint to the effect that he was deputed for duty on 16.09.2012 at GGDSD College, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh regarding the test for the post of Clerk. During the checking of the identity of the candidates from the admit cards in Room No.25, it was found that the appearance of a person sitting at Roll No.18544 did not match with the photograph. On suspicion, he was asked about the details regarding his date of birth and address. He could not give a satisfactory reply and then admitted that he had appeared in the examination in place of Anil Kumar son of Shri Balwant Singh (petitioner in CRR-2058-2022) and according to him, his real name was Harpeet Singh son of Narender Pal Singh (petitioner CRR-2135-2022) and he belonged to Delhi. Thus, Harpreet Singh who was apprehended at the spot, impersonated and appeared as Anil Kumar son of Shri Balwant Singh. During investigation, accused Anil Kumar was arrested. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. After completion of investigation, the challan against the accused was prepared and presented in the Court for trial.
4. On finding a prima facie case for the commission of offences by both the accused, which was punishable under Sections 120-B, 419 read with Section 120-B and 420 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860, they were charge-sheeted on 19.02.2015, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
PW-1 Yogesh Kumar Prashar is the complainant of the present case and deposed in terms of his complaint Ex.P-1. He identified his signatures on complaint Ex.P-1. He proved documents i.e. admit card of Anil Kumar Ex.P-2. OMR answer sheet bearing Serial No.108544 Ex.P-3; question paper booklet bearing Serial No.13858 Ex.P-4; answer sheet No.24185 Ex.P-5; letter Ex.P-6 seeking copy of duty roster, attendance sheet and order of examination center regarding its booking; duty roster sheet Ex.P-7; relevant entry Ex.P-7/A, photocopy of attendance sheet of Centre No.11, GGDSD, Sector 32 Ex.P-8 and letter regarding booking of GGDSD College for holding the examination Ex.P-9. He fully supported the prosecution case and identified the accused-petitioners in the Court.
PW-2 MMHC Tejinder Singh produced the summoned record of entry No.1248 dated 06.09.2012 vide which ASI Balwinder Singh deposited a mobile phone make Samsung Colour Red and report to this effect is Ex.PW-2/A.
PW-3 Anil Kumar, Clerk produced the summoned record with regard to DL No.BWN/CDL/47472006. As per record, the said DL was registered in the name of Anil Kumar son of Shri Balwant Singh, resident of V.P.O. Nimri, Tehsil and Bhiwani and was valid up to 22.08.2026 and the bearer was authorised to drive a motorcycle with gear/scooter and report to this effect was given to the I.O. and was on the Court file as Ex.PW3/A.
PW-4 SI Balwinder Singh is the Investigating Officer of the present case and deposed regarding the steps taken by him during investigation of the present case. He tendered various documents i.e. endorsement on the complaint Ex.PW
AI
The main legal point established is the conclusive evidence of impersonation and possession of documents leading to the upheld conviction and sentence under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC.
The court established that fingerprint analysis is a reliable method of identification, and the admissibility of expert opinions is crucial in cases involving impersonation and fraud.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of recording the complainant's statement and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Insufficient evidence of criminal misconduct or pecuniary advantage under the Prevention of Corruption Act leads to the discharge of accused in a recruitment-related irregularity case.
Prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt and follow proper procedures in framing charges; failure to do so may result in acquittal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.