Dismissed

State v. Neelam Rani

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Sept 2017CR.R/408/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an acquittal. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, finding no evidence of conspiracy, entrustment of property, or improper withdrawal of funds, thus upholding the lower courts' judgments.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; the acquittal and dismissal of the state's appeal were upheld.

State Vs Neelam Rani — Cheating and Forgery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.Revision No. 408 of 2016 Reserved on: 28.8.2017 Decided on: 11.9.2017.

¶3

____________________________________________________ State of H.P. …… Petitioner. Versus Neelam Rani & Ors. …… Respondents.

¶4

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.

¶5

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Virender K. Verma, Addl. AG with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. For the respondent: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Kishore Pundir, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶6

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge .

¶7

The present revision petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., against the

¶8

judgment of acquittal, dated 28.12.2011, passed by the

¶9

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

¶11

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.2/2010, under Sections 406,420,467 and 120-B IPC, whereby the judgment of acquittal, dated 26.11.2009, passed by the then learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, H,.P. in Case No.5-1 of 2005/9-II/2008, has been upheld.

¶12

Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution, are that on the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., moved by the complainant, Smt. Maya Devi, a case was registered against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused persons’), on the ground that the complainant (Maya Devi) is the wife of Ram Parkash (deceased) and she is 75 years old and resident of village Oel, Tehsil, Amb, District Una, H.P. She had four sons. It has been alleged that her younger son, namely Shiv Kumar was married to accused Neelam Kumari alias Sunita Rani and he served for 18 years in DCM, Hindon River Mills, Ghaziabad. It has also been alleged that Shiv Kumar had expired on 23.10.1999 at Ghaziabad, while he was in service. It is further averred that Shiv Kumar was holder of GPF account bearing

¶13

¶14

No.2804. It has been averred that after the death of said Shiv Kumar, accused No.1, Neelam Kumari alias Sunita Rani, fraudulently conspired with Ramesh Kumar, halqua Patwari and got prepared legal heir certificate by deleting the name of the complainant and she also withdrew Rs.68,130/- from the aforesaid GPF account of the deceased, vide cheque No.320450, on 19.5.2000, from the Head Office at Merrut. Accused No.1, Neelam Kumari alias Sunita Rani, cheated the complainant to gain benefit and

¶15

that she has committed crime in the eyes of law. Investigation was conducted and during the course of investigation, it was concluded that the Patwari (Ramesh Kumar) did not conspire, but Jameet Singh and Gian Chand conspired with accused Neelam Kumari alias Sunita Rani. The handwriting and signatures of the accused were

¶16

got compared and the police also took into possession the legal heir certificate. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented before the Court below. After summoning the accused persons, copies of challan and other documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied. The accused persons were charged under Section 406, 420, 467 and 120-B IPC to which, they

¶17

¶18

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶19

On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused persons were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to which, they pleaded innocence and did not intend to lead any defence evidence. The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter, the State preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court and the learned Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the State, hence the present revision.

¶20

The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the petitioner-State has vehemently argued that the accused persons have committed a heinous crime and deserves heavy punishment. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have stated that the accused persons/respondents are innocent persons and are falsely implicated in this case.

¶21

PW-1, Sanjay Kalota, Advocate, has stated that from 2000 to 2002, he was an Oath Commissioner in the Court Complex and affidavit, Ex.PW/A, was attested by him on the direction of accused No.1, Neelam Kumari and R.S. Bhati, Advocate and the signature of

¶22

¶23

Mr. Bhati has been marked as Ex.PW1/B.

¶24

PW 2, Renu Bij, Steno, who was posted in the office of S.D.M., Amb during the relevant period, has stated that on 24.9.2002, she handed over copy of legal heir certificate to the police and memo Ex.PW2/A to that effect was prepared.

¶25

PW3, HHC Subhash Chand has stated about the personal diary, Ex.PW3/A of accused, Gian Chand for the purpose of comparison of handwriting and signatures. He has also admitted that he had signed the recovery memo. PW4, Santosh Kumar, Tehsildar, in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 17.12.2003, HC Karanjit Singh made application for specimen signatures of accused Jameet Singh and in his presence, Jameet Singh gave writing in Court and documents qua that are Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/F. He has also stated that he has attested the signatures/ handwriting and documents Ex.PW4/G to Ex.PW4/M.

¶26

PW5, Ramesh Chand, Patwari has stated that in the year 2001, he was posted in Oel Patwar Circle and that on 07.3.2001, accused No.1, Neelam Kumari made an application for legal heir certificate and on such

¶27

¶28

request, he made report of the heirs on the back side of application, Ex.PW5/A.

¶29

PW6, Visheshwar Sharma, Assistant Director,

¶30

RFSL, Dharamsala, who was an Expert, has stated about comparison of signatures of the accused persons.

¶31

PW7, ASI Deep Chand, had investigated the

¶32

case and stated that on 20.4.2002, after transfer of the Investigating Officer, the case was handed over to him for investigation. He has also stated about the specimen signatures and handwriting of accused No.1, Neelam Kumar alias Sunita Rani, Ex.PW6/C-4 to Ex.PW6/C-9 and specimen of hand writing Ex.PW4/G to

¶33

Ex.PW/M. He has also admitted the handwriting of accused Gian Chand on Ex.PW6/C-11 to Ex.PW6/C-15. He has also stated about the forwarding of specimen of handwriting and signatures to FSL and report Ex.PW6/D. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that he did not record statement of complainant Maya Devi and also admitted that he did not try to find out the whereabouts or address of the complainant. He has admitted that there were allegations against Ramesh Chand, Patwari and that was also the version of the

¶34

¶35

complainant, but he did not array Ramesh Chand, Patwari, as co-accused.

¶36

PW8, Inspector, Kailash Walia, has stated that he had prepared the challan on 30.6.2004.

¶37

PW9, SI Girdhari Lal has stated that he received an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.PW9/A, in the Police Station, on 4.12.2001, on the basis of which, FIR Ex.PW9/B, was got registered.

¶38

From the above evidence, it is clear that in affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, duly executed and signed by accused Neelam Kumari alias Sunita Rani, the legal heirs are shown as Neelam Rani alias Sunita Rani widow and Rakesh Kumar, son and Ankush Kumar, son. Ex.PW6/A is the legal heir certificate issued by accused Jameet Singh, in which Neelam Rani alias Sunita Rani, Rakesh Kumar and Ankush Kumar have been shown as legal heirs. Ex.PW6/C, the application taken into possession by the police for comparing the signatures of accused Gian Chand. Ex.PW6/D, the report of FSL and Ex.PW6/E, the reasoning given by the Examiner of Questioned Documents were perused along with other evidence, which has come on record.

¶39

¶40

The prosecution has failed to prove that all

¶41

the accused persons agreed to do or have conspired to do any illegal act or by illegal means some act, which is illegal. The prosecution has also failed to prove the entrustment of the property or its mis-appropriation by accused persons. There is no evidence on record that any document was produced in order to cheat any particular person. The amount, if withdrawn on the basis of legal heir certificate is not proved to be misappropriated by the accused persons. The Handwriting Expert has not stated anything positive with regard to the question with respect to matching of the handwriting and signatures. Even otherwise also, there is no evidence to conclude that the accused persons have committed the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 120-B IPC.

¶42

As the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons in any of the offences. Ramesh Chand, Patwari has stated that he has made the report on the back of the application for legal heir certificate. From this also, it can be inferred that the legal heir certificate was issued on the report of the Patwari (Ramesh Chand), who is not impleaded as

¶43

¶44

accused.

¶45

From the above evidence, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. Even after re-appreciating the evidence, which has come on record, this Court is not in a position to hold the accused persons guilty of the offences, they are charged with.

¶46

It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258, that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified.

¶47

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T .

¶48

Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶49

Keeping in view what has been discussed

¶50

¶51

hereinabove, in a nut shell, it is more than safe to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Thus, there is no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court as well as learned lower Appellate Court. The petition sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.

¶52

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s)

¶53

disposed of accordingly.

¶54

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge

¶55

September 11,2017.

¶56

(M.gandhi)

State v. Neelam Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Neelam Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Suresh Kumar

Jamaludeen Vs State of Hp

Shiv Ram Vs Rattan Lal

State Vs Krishan Lal

Kashmir Singh Vs State of Hp

Aneep Kumar Vs State