Back
2013 Supreme(All) 2121
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.
Ramakant Dubey -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P -Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2002
Decided On : 05-09-2013
For the Revisionist : Anil Kumar Tripathi and V.P. Pandey.
For the Opposite Party :Government Advocate, Bireshwar Nath.
The judgment established the principle that expert opinion must be corroborated and cannot solely form the basis for conviction. It also emphasized the importance of proving the original document and the limitations of the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Appeal - Sections 420/511/468/471 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a criminal revision filed by the accused challenging the order of conviction under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 511 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused forged a recommendation letter from the Prime Minister's residence to secure a job appointment, leading to the filing of a first information report and subsequent trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the expert report of handwriting and the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was insufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the lack of original documents, weak expert evidence, and gaps in the chain of events, leading to the conclusion that the findings of both lower courts were perverse and not based on the record.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the forgery charges, the reliability of expert opinion, and the interpretation of the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that expert opinion must be received with caution and should be corroborated by other evidence. It also highlighted the need for the prosecution to prove the original document and the importance of the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as an explanation rather than conclusive evidence.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was allowed, and the accused was acquitted based on the benefit of doubt.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for respondent.
2. This criminal revision has been filed by RamaKant Dubey, son of Late Sri Ram Adhar Dubey, resident of Village- Dhaskari, P.S. Bhadohi, District Bhadohi (Varanasi) challenging the order dated 15.01.2002 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-8th, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 1998 by which the criminal appeal filed against conviction order dated 16.12.1997 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) was dismissed.
3. As per prosecution version, a first information report was lodged by Superintendent of Police on 29.1.1986 that accused was working as an agent in National Insurance Company, Bhadohi Branch Office Varanasi. He has moved an application for appointment on the post of Inspector/Development Officer in the year 1985. But due to certain reasons his name was not considered. After that a recommendatory letter was received in the Office of Regional Manager National Insurance Company by Sri G.S. Narang the Regional Manager. The letter was allegedly written by Secretary, Sri S. Singh allegedly from Prime Minister's residence which was found forged. On this first information report, a case under Sections 420/511/468/471 IPC was registered. The matter was investigated by CBI, Lucknow and charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. At the time of trial, charge under Sections 420, 468 and 420 read with Section 511 IPC was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined PW1 M.M.S. Beg, Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, P.W.2 B.R. Khatri retired Senior Divisional Manager National Insurance Company, P.W.3 G.S. Narang, retired Assistant Manager, P.W.4 Ashok Babu, Inspector C.B.I., P.W. 5 Amar Singh, Handwriting Expert and P.W. 6 Om Prakash Mishr, Section Officer (Administration) Prime Minister's Office. Documentary evidence was adduced from the side of prosecution which is the envelope containing that letter exhibit-K-1 to K-16. Learned Court below after going through the evidence and hearing the parties convicted the accused under Sections 468, 471,420 read with Section 511 IPC and convicted him to undergo one year simple imprisonment in each Section and Rs.500/- fine and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
5. Appeal against that order was preferred being Criminal Appeal No.1/98, which too was dismissed on 15.1.2002. Feeling aggrieved this criminal revision has been filed.
6. It was argued from the side of the revisionist that the letter which is alleged to be forged has not been produced in original. Photostat copy was produced and proved without comparing with the original. It was also submitted that the sample handwriting was compared by the handwriting expert from that of the photostat and the entire judgment is based on conjectures and surmises.
7. It was also submitted that without original being proved no case of forgery is made out. It was also submitted that the expert report is very weak type of evidence and without any corroboration it is dangerous to convict the accused. It was also submitted that statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is not evidence and no conviction can be based on the basis of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It was also submitted that the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. should be read as a whole and not as a part. Without considering the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as a whole, the conviction by the trial Court and dismissal of appeal both are erroneous. It was also submitted that both the courts have not considered the evidence in proper perspective and thus the finding is perverse.
8. This revisional court has not been entrusted with the powers of appellate court. As this Court has only to see the irregularity and illegality in the order and for deciding that wheth
