The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt in cases of forgery under the IPC, and the court's discretion in modifying sentences based on the nature of the offense and the defendant's circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

By means of the present revision, the revisionist challenges the followings:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 15.02.2019, passed in Criminal Case No. 192 of 2014, State Vs. Satendra Pal Singh, by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 420, 467 468 and 471 IPC and has been sentenced as hereunder:-

(a) Under Section 420 IPC: to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

(b) Under Section 467 IPC: to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

(c) Under Section 468 IPC: to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

(d) Under Section 471 IPC: to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month; And.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 04.06.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2019, Satendra Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand by the court of Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal (“the appeal”). By it, the judgment and order dated 15.02.2019, passed in the case has been affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows. The revisionist applied for the post of Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (“CISF”). He produced High School certificate in support of his educational qualification. He was recruited also. Subsequently, it was reported that the certificate filed by the revisionist was forged. An report was made by the Deputy Commandant, CISF on 20.12.2012, based on which, FIR was lodged. The matter was investigated. After investigation, charge sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC was submitted against the revisionist. On 24.07.2014, the revisionist was charged under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, namely, PW1 Virendra Mohan Joshi, PW2 Sairsain Kumar, PW3 Sudeep Kumar Sinha, PW4 Ajresh Kumar, PW5 Bharat Singh Chaudhary, PW6 Sandeep Sagar and PW7 Manoj Kamboj.

5. The revisionist was examined under Sections 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) According to him, he had passed high school from Janta Inter College, Roopwas Pachgain Bulandshahr and the same certificate was filed by him at the time of recruitment. He claimed that the witnesses have falsely deposed against him.

6. After hearing the parties, by an impugned judgment and order dated 15.02.2020 passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinbefore. The judgment and order passed in the case was unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal.

7. It is a revision. At the time of hearing trial court record has also been summoned.

8. Learned Senior counsel for the revisionist would submit that, in fact, the revisionist had passed high school from the JIC Roopwas Pachgain Bulandshahr and certificate was accordingly filed by him at the time of recruitment.

9. It is further argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist that the certificate, which is claimed to have been filed by the revisionist was not filed by him. It is argued that perhaps someone had changed the certificate filed by the revisionist.

10. Annexure 1 is the High School certificate, which is referred to, to argue that it is the certificate, which was filed by the revisionist. Annexure No.1 in the revision are high school certificate and the mark-sheet. According to it, the candidate had obtained 32