The case concerned obtaining and issuing a forged death certificate in a living person's name for employment and post-death benefits. The Court dismissed both revisions, leaving convictions and sentences for impersonation, cheating, forgery, use of a forged document and defamation undisturbed, and cancelled the petitioners' bail bonds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 535 of 2012
Nepal Hembram son of Late Nunulal Hembram, Resident of village– Chandradiha, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, District– Jamtara … … Petitioner
… … Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
With Criminal Revision No. 409 of 2012
Dilip Mandal son of Lakhinarayan Mandal, resident of Village– Khairbani, P.O.- Jamjori, P.S.- Fatehpur, District– Jamtara … … Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Through: Video Conferencing
08 /20.09.2021
1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012 assisted by Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate.
2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 535/2012.
3. Heard Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. and Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State in Cr. Rev. No. 535/2012 and Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012 respectively.
4. Both these criminal revision petitions are directed against the Judgments dated 17.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2012 and Criminal Appeal No. 03/2012 respectively whereby and whereunder the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the petitioners namely, Nepal Hembram and Dilip Mandal passed by the learned trial court has been upheld and both the criminal appeals have been dismissed.
2
5. The learned trial court, vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 19.12.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in G.R. No. 301 of 1998 /T.R. No. 233 of 2011 arising out of Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case No. 135/1998 dated 20.07.1998, had convicted both the petitioners namely, Nepal Hembram and Dilip Mandal under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced each of them as under:
Arguments on behalf of petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012
6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012 submitted that the petitioner-Dilip Mandal was working as Village Level Worker and the allegation against him is that he was instrumental in issuance of the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram. He submitted that Sukul Hembram, who had died, was also known as Nunulal Hembram and accordingly, there was no illegality in issuance of the death certificate. The learned Senior counsel
3
also submitted that it is not in dispute that Sukul Hembram had expired and he was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works. He further submitted that the photograph of Sukul Hembram has also been exhibited and as per the photograph and other identity documents of the person working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works, the name of the person who was working was Nunulal Hembram and accordingly, it is the specific case of the prosecution that Sukul Hembram was also known as Nunulal Hembram. The learned Senior counsel submitted that under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the offences against the petitioner-Dilip Mandal are proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner-Dilip Mandal had nothing to gain from issuance of the alleged forged death certificate and he was working in his official capacity only. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that no charge has been framed for the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, there is no question of conspiracy with the prime accused i.e. Nepal Hembram who was the person who had applied for issuance of the death certificate.
Arguments on behalf of petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 535/2012
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerNepal Hembram submitted that the application for issuance of death certificate of Nunulal Hembram was filed in view of the fact that the father of Nepal Hembram was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works and was known as Nunulal Hembram. The learned counsel submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner-Nepal Hembram was the person whose father was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works and in such circumstances, the application for issuance of the death certificate in the name of Nunulal Hembram cannot be said to be illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that in
4
view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the father of the petitioner-Nepal Hembram was also known as Nunulal Hembram who was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works and accordingly, no case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of IPC is made out against him. He submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned courts below is perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Arguments of the Opposite Party-State in both the cases
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite PartyState in both the cases vehemently opposed the prayers made on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the Complainant is Nunulal Hembram who stated that the petitioner-Nepal Hembram and others had taken part in issuance of the death certificate in his name, although he was alive. They also submitted that Sukul Hembram was the brother of Nunulal Hembram and the petitioner-Nepal Hembram was the son of Sukul Hembram, but he applied for issuance of death certificate in the name of Nunulal Hembram, as Sukul Hembram was working in the name of Nunulal Hembram in Chitranjan Locomotive Works. They also submitted that the purpose of applying for death certificate of Nunulal Hembram was to take the post-death benefits and other consequential benefits of Sukul Hembram who was working in the name of Nunulal Hembram. They further submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below with regard to the role of the present petitioners in the matter of issuance of the death certificate in the name of the Complainant-Nunulal Hembram. They further submitted that the petitioner-Dilip Mandal was the Village Level Worker and he having certified that Nunulal Hembram has expired was instrumental in issuance of the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram, although Nunulal Hembram was alive and is the Complainant in the case
5
who has made the allegation regarding issuance of his death certificate. They submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and accordingly, the same do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Findings of this Court
9. The prosecution case, in the present case, is based on a Complaint presented by Nunulal Hembram on 25.04.1998 against Nepal Hembram and Sonamuni Hembram alleging inter-alia that a death certificate has been issued in his name, although he is alive. It was further alleged that Nepal Hembram son of Sukul Hembram and Dilip Mandal were instrumental in issuance of the death certificate being Certificate No. 178 dated 04.09.1997 in which Nepal Hembram declared himself to be the son of Nunulal Hembram. It was also mentioned that this fact was known to the people of the entire Panchayat that Shyamlal Hembram is the son of Nunulal Hembram and the accused Nepal Hembram is the son of Sukul Hembram. It was alleged that neither Nepal Hembram is the son of Nunulal Hembram, nor Sonamuni is the wife of Nunulal Hembram. On this background, it was alleged that Nepal Hembram also used the aforesaid death certificate to get employment in Chitranjan Locomotive Works and to take out money from the bank account. It was also alleged that the Complainant-Nunulal Hembram had also issued a legal notice to Nepal Hembram, which he refused to accept and threatened to kill the Complainant.
10. The said Complaint was sent to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and a formal First Information Report being Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case No. 135/1998 dated 20.07.1998 was registered. The case was investigated and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against Nepal Hembram S/o Sukul
6
Hembram and Sonamuni Hembram W/o Sukul Hembram, Surai Kisku-the then Mukhiya and the Panchayat Sevak-Dilip Mandal. Out of the four accused persons against whom chargesheet was submitted, Sonamuni Hembram and the then Mukhiya-Surai Kisku expired and therefore, the prosecution case was continued against Nepal Hembram and Dilip Mandal only who are the petitioners before this Court.
11. It is important to note that the charge-sheet was, interalia, submitted against Nepal Hembram S/o Sukul Hembram who faced the trial and he has been alleged to have obtained the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram who is the Complainant of the case, but in the cause title of the present case, the petitioner-Nepal Hembram has still described himself as son of Nunulal Hembram. The criminal appeal before the learned appellate court was also filed by Nepal Hembram describing himself as son of Late Nunulal Hembram, although Nunulal Hembram was himself the Complainant. It further transpires from the Lower Court Records that the F.I.R. was also registered interalia against Nepal Hembram S/o Late Sukul Hembram. The complaint petition also describes the petitioner-Nepal Hembram as son of Sukul Hembram and Charge-sheet was also filed against Nepal Hembram S/o Sukul Hembram. Thus description of the petitioner Nepal Hembram S/o Nunulal Hembram is not correct and it should be read as Nepal Hembram S/o Sukul Hembram.
12. The Charge-sheet was submitted on 31.12.1998 for offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance of the offence was taken on 15.01.1999 and the charges were framed against the petitioners on 28.03.2000 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of IPC which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7
13. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 09 witnesses. P.W.-1 is Haru Rai who was the Chaukidar of the Village- Chandradeepa. He deposed that Nepal Hembram S/o Sukul Hembram got the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram issued and upon enquiry, they found that Nunulal Hembram was alive and accordingly, the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram was illegal. He also deposed that in the death certificate, there is mention of about obtaining service in Chitranjan Locomotive Works, although the son of the Informant-Nunulal Hembram is Shyamlal Hembram. He has been fully cross-examined. In his cross-examination, he stated that the father of Nepal Hembram was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works and had expired and the petitioner-Nepal Hembram was taking out the death certificate of his father. He also stated that the father of the petitionerNepal Hembram were three brothers and it was only the father of the petitioner-Nepal Hembram who was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works and after his death, his GPF and post-death benefits were conferred upon Nepal Hembram. He also stated that the petitioner-Nepal Hembram had taken out the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram (the informant) for obtaining job in Chitranjan Locomotive Works, although Nepal Hembram is not the son of Nunulal Hembram and he is the son of Sukul Hembram and the son of Nunulal Hembram is Shyamlal Hembram.
14. P.W.-2 is Shambhu Murmu who is the son-in-law of the informant-Nunulal Hembram. He deposed that Nunulal Hembram was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works in casual. He further stated that Sukul Hembram is the brother of Nunulal Hembram and when a letter was issued for service of Nunulal Hembram, then Sukul Hembram had taken that service by stating himself as Nunulal Hembram and thereafter,
8
Sukul Hembram who was working in the name of Nunulal Hembram had died while in service. Nepal Hembram declared himself as son of Nunulal Hembram and got the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram issued and thereafter, Nunulal Hembram, who is still alive, filed the case. This witness has been fully cross-examined and, in his cross-examination, he stated that he is the son-in-law of the informant-Nunulal Hembram who has filed the case. He further stated that the father of Nepal Hembram was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works, though in the name of Nunulal Hembram and Sonamuni is the mother of Nepal Hembram. He further stated that the informant-Nunulal Hembram came to know about the entire facts when Sukul Hembram, the father of Nepal Hembram expired.
15. P.W.-3 is Nunulal Hembram who is the informant of the case. He deposed that he is alive, but the accused declared him dead so that they could get post-death benefits on the basis of forged death certificate. He stated that they were three brothers namely, Purlai Hembram, Sukul Hembram and he himself i.e. Nunulal Hembram. He further stated that he has one son namely, Shyamlal Hembram and three daughters and Nepal Hembram is the son of Sukul Hembram. He identified his signatures on the Complaint which were marked as Exhibits-1 to 1/4.
He further stated that Sukul Hembram was in service for last 10 years and 21 to 22 years back, the informant was working in Railways in casual. He also stated that Sukul Hembram had never worked as a casual employee. He stated that through the inspector, he came to know that Sukul Hembram was working his name. He stated that for 10 to 12 years, he had not gone out of the village. He exhibited some documents regarding deposits as Exhibits-2, 2/1 and 2/2. He also exhibited his loan pass book
9
with his photograph which was marked as Exhibit-3. He also exhibited one affidavit of the year 1998 in which, it was sworn by him that none of his family members is a government employee. He identified his signature on the affidavit and the affidavit and his signatures were marked as Exhibits-4 and 4/1 respectively. He exhibited photo copy of voter list giving the serial number as 836, which was marked as Exhibit-X for identification. In his cross-examination, he stated that all the three brothers including himself were separated last 6 to 7 years ago and earlier, all were one family. He stated that the father of Nepal Hembram i.e. Sukul Hembram never worked in service and he had joined the service 10 years ago and the mother of Nepal Hembram was Sonamuni. He exhibited two photographs of Sukul Hembram which were marked as Exhibits-A and A/1. He also stated that Nepal Hembram was the only son of his parents and the father of Nepal Hembram used to say that he was working in dam and used to go for duty in the morning and used to come back in the evening. He never tried to find out as to where the father of Nepal Hembram was working. He also stated that after death of the father of Nepal Hembram, he came to know through inspector that Sukul Hembram was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works in his name.
16. P.W.-4 is Satomuni Kisku who was the then village Pradhan and is a resident of the same village. She stated that Nunulal Hembram was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works and he is alive and he had three brothers and the youngest one is Nunulal Hembram. She stated that the other two brothers have expired. She also stated that the documents for service had come in the name of Nunulal Hembram and the same had come after death of Sukul Hembram and it was written in the said letter that Nunulal Hembram has expired and accordingly, the accused approached the Mukhiya and
10
Gram Sevak and got the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram prepared, although Nunulal Hembram is still alive. She was also fully cross-examined and, in her cross-examination, she reiterated that Sukul Hembram had taken the service of Nunulal Hembram. She also identified the photographs of Sukul Hembram which were exhibited as Exhibits-A and A/1. The evidence of this witness clearly demonstrates that Sukul Hembram had worked in place of Nunulal Hembram and she has been able to know for 8 years that Sukul Hembram was working in the name of Nunulal Hembram. She has disclosed to the police that Nunulal Hembram is alive and Sukul Hembram has expired. She has also stated that she worked in Chitranjan Locomotive Works.
17. P.W.-5 is Babujan Murmu who deposed that Nunulal Hembram is still alive, but Nepal Hembram and his mother have got death certificate of Nunulal Hembram issued from Mukhiya and Sarpanch. He also stated that the father of Nepal Hembram was Sukul Hembram who was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works and after about 4 to 5 years of joining the service, he came to know that Sukul Hembram was working in the name of Nunulal Hembram and the villagers knew this fact for the last 13 years that Sukul Hembram was working in the name of Nunulal Hembram and after death of the father of Nepal Hembram, when the post death benefits were to be disbursed to Nepal Hembram and his mother, the entire dispute cropped up.
18. P.W.-6 Md. Merajuddin Khan is the investigating officer of the case. He deposed that he had taken over the investigation of the case and had visited the places of occurrence and the residence of the parties. He stated that he had recorded the statements of Nunulal Hembram and other witnesses and Nunulal Hembram was alive and his death certificate was got
11
issued by entering into conspiracy. He exhibited the chargesheet which was marked as Exhibit-6. He exhibited the seizure list which included the photocopy of the voter list, ration card issued in the name of Nunulal Hembram, death certificate issued by the then Panchayat Sevak-Dilip Mandal (the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.409 of 2012) and death certificate issued by the then Mukhiya-Surai Kisku. He stated that these documents were handed over to him by Shyamlal Hembram who is the son of the informant. The seizure list was marked as Exhibit-7. He has supported the prosecution case by stating that Nepal Hembram was working as son of Nunulal Hembram which is incorrect. He has stated that Dilip Mandal is a Village Level Worker and he is the only one Village Level Worker in that particular area, who is responsible for making enquiry for death certificate and for issuance of the same and he had issued the said death certificate of Nunulal Hembram without verification and he is also involved in the offence and therefore, he submitted charge-sheet against Nepal Hembram, Dilip Mandal and others.
19. P.W.-7 is Nimai Chandra Jha who is a Panchayat Sewak of the area. He stated that the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram was issued on the basis of an application which was given by Nepal Hembram which contains his signature and he identified his signature which was marked as Exhibit-8. He stated that Surai Kisku was the then Mukhiya who had issued the said death certificate by directing the Panchayat Sevak-Dilip Mandal to issue the death certificate. The signature of Surai Kisku was marked as Exhibit-9 and on the basis of such direction, the then Panchayat Sevak-Dilip Mandal issued the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram in Form-10 which was prepared in two copies and one of them was handed to the petitioner-Nepal Hembram and other was kept in the records.
12
He stated that the death certificate of the Informant being A Certificate No. dated 29.03.1997 was marked as Exhibit-10 196251 and the signature of Nepal Hembram on the death certificate was marked as Exhibit-10/1. He was also been fully crossexamined. He stated that he is the Panchayat Sevak for the last 6 to 7 months and he has no personal knowledge about the case. He has stated that prior to issuance of death certificate, proper enquiry is conducted and after satisfaction, the death certificate is issued.
20. P.W.-8 is Shyam Lal Hembram who is the son of Nunulal Hembram, the informant of the case. He deposed that Sukul Hembram, the father of Nepal Hembram was working in the name of his father-Nunulal Hembram. He exhibited the photograph of Sukul Hembram who was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works. He stated that his father had no knowledge that Sukul Hembram was working in his name and when Sukul Hembram expired, he came to know about this fact.
21. P.W.-9 Basudeo Hembram is a resident of VillageChandradeepa and he deposed that around 10 years back, Nunulal Hembram had filed a case and at that point of time, Nunulal Hembram was alive and the reason for filing the case was that Sukul Hembram was working in the name of Nunulal Hembram, though Nunulal Hembram was the full brother of Sukul Hembram and Nunulal Hembram came to know about this fact only when Sukul Hembram had expired. He further stated that he Nunulal Hembram had no knowledge about this fact and came to know only after the death of Sukul Hembram, the father of Nepal Hembram. He stated that the photographs on the identity card (Exhibit-A) as well as on the medical card (Exhibit-A/1) are the photographs of Sukul Hembram who is the father of Nepal Hembram.
13
22. After considering the evidences on record, the learned trial court recorded that on the basis of application filed by Nepal Hembram, the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram was issued. The application was filed by Nepal Hembram in 1997, although the trial court has recorded that it obtained the signature of Nunulal Hembram, but the same is apparently an error of record in view of the fact that the trial court’s judgment itself indicates that Exhibit-8 was the application filed by Nepal Hembram for issuance of death certificate of Nunulal Hembram and upon perusal of Lower Court Records also, it appears that Exhibit-8 is the application filed by Nepal Hembram and not by Nunulal Hembram. On the basis of this application, the then Mukhiya issued the death certificate that Nunulal Hembram has expired and his death certificate can be issued which was marked as Exhibit-9 and thereafter, the death certificate i.e. Ext.10 was issued and thus, Exhibit-10 was issued on the basis of Exhibits-8 and 9. The learned trial court further recorded that from perusal of the death certificate, it appears that Nunulal Hembram has expired on 04.03.1997 and by giving such declaration, the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram was issued. The learned trial court also recorded that the evidences of P.Ws.- 3, 6 and 7 reflect that the death certificate was issued on the application made by Nepal Hembram in connivance with the then Mukhiya and the then Panchayat Sevak, although Nunulal Hembram was alive and Sonamuni Hembram-wife of Sukul Hembram and Surai Kisku-the then Mukhiya are not facing trial, as they have already expired. The learned trial court also recorded that the defence, during cross-examination, has failed to create any doubt over Exhibit-A and A/1. The learned trial court further recorded that the evidences adduced by prosecution fully establish creation of forged death certificate with an intention of cheating and using the same as genuine
14
and to insult the informant on the basis of the said certificate. Accordingly, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly.
23. The learned appellate court also considered the evidences on record and referred to Exhibit-8 which is the application dated 12.03.1994 filed by Nepal Hembram for issuance of death certificate of Nunulal Hembram and recorded that Nepal Hembram has written that his father was working in CLW, Chitranjan who has expired on 04.03.1997 and accordingly, the death certificate of his father Nunulal Hembram may be issued. The learned appellate court also considered Exhibits-9 and 10 and gave concurrence finding of facts that the petitioner-Nepal Hembram had applied for death certificate of Nunulal Hembram, which was issued, although the father of Nepal Hembram was Sukul Hembram who, in turn, was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works in the name of his brother i.e. Nunulal Hembram and accordingly, the identity card and the medical card being exhibited as Exhibit-A and A/1, do not help the defence in any manner and the defence has not produced any defence witness. Nepal Hembram and Dilip Mandal had filed difference appeals before the learned appellate court which were Cr. Appeal No. 05/2012 and Cr. Appeal No. 03/2012 respectively. Both the criminal appeals were dismissed by the learned appellate court by separate Judgments, though both the Judgments are dated 17.04.2012.
24. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that P.W.-1 (Informant) is the most important witness of the case and he has fully supported his version stated in his Complaint. In his evidence, he has fully supported the facts and allegations that Sukul
15
Hembram (the father of the petitioner-Nepal Hembram) was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works in the name of the Informant-Nunulal Hembram and after death of Sukul Hembram, the petitioner-Nepal Hembram misrepresented himself as the son of the Informant-Nunulal Hembram, but in fact he was the son of Sukul Hembram and submitted application for issuance of death certificate of Nunulal Hembram who was then alive. The forged death certificate was issued in the name of Nunulal Hembram which was an insult to the Informant-Nunulal Hembram. Thereafter, the petitionerNepal Hembram used the said forged death certificate as genuine for getting the post-death benefits and also for getting service in Chitranjan Locomotive Works. He has fully supported the prosecution case against Nepal Hembram, Sonamuni Hembram, Surai Kisku and Dilip Mandal. He has exhibited a number of documentary evidences to disclose his identity as Nunulal Hembram, being alive at the time of issuance of the forged death certificate in his name, as well as to disclose the identity of Sukul Hembram who was the father of Nepal Hembram.
25. This Court further finds that P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-4, P.W.5, P.W.-6 (Investigating Officer), P.W.-8 and P.W.-9 have fully corroborated the evidence of the Informant with regard to the facts and allegations made against the petitioner-Nepal Hembram.
26. This Court further finds that P.W.-6 (Investigating Officer and P.W.-7 have supported and corroborated the facts that the petitioner-Dilip Mandal was the then Panchayat Sevak, a Village Level Worker in the area and on the direction of Surai Kisku who was the then Mukhiya of the village, the petitionerDilip Mandal had issued the forged death certificate in Form-10
16
in the name of Nunulal Hembram without verification and in connivance with Nepal Hembram and other accused persons . 27. It has been specifically submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in Cr. Revision no 409 of 2012 that no charge has been framed for the offence under Section 120-B IPC and accordingly, there is no question of conspiracy with the prime accused i.e. Nepal Hembram who was the person who had applied for issuance of the death certificate. It has come in the defence evidence that prior to issuance of death certificate, proper enquiry is conducted and after satisfaction, the death certificate is issued. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Dilip Mandal was the Village Level Worker and was instrumental in issuance of the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram, although Nunulal Hembram was alive and the petitioner- Dilip Mandal was throughout aware that he was being tried on account of being instrumental in issuance of death certificate of Nunulal Hembram- the complainant, who was alive. In this background the role of the petitioner -Dilip Mandal, being instrumental in issuance of the death certificate has been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and non-framing of specific charge under section 120B of IPC has no bearing in the matter. The argument that Sukul Hembram was also known as Nunulal Hembram is not based on any evidence on record and is devoid of any merits. Rather it has been proved that Sukul Hembram was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works in the name of Nunulal Hembram by suppressing his real name as Sukul Hembram.
28. So far as the other petitioner namely, Nepal Hembram is concerned, the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram was issued at his instance and there is no evidence on record to show that Sukul Hembram, his father was also known as Nunulal Hembram. Rather it has been proved that Sukul
17
Hembram was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works in the name of Nunulal Hembram by suppressing his real name as Sukul Hembram. Merely because Sukul Hembram was working in the name of Nunulal Hembram in Chitranjan Locomotive Works by suppressing his actual name i.e Sukul Hembram, the same cannot be a justification for applying and issuance of death certificate in the name of Nunulal Hembram , who was alive. Thus, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Nepal Hembram, who tried to justify the issuance of death certificate issued in the name of Nunulal Hembram, is also devoid of any merits.
29. This Court also finds that all the prosecution witnesses were fully cross-examined on behalf of the petitioners, but nothing could be elicited from them to create doubt over their testimonies.
30. This Court finds that all the essential ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code are satisfied against the petitioners in the present case.
31. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have carefully scrutinized all the materials on record and have recorded concurrent findings of facts regarding commission of the offences by the petitioners.
32. The Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the power of revisional court in the case of Jagannath Choudhary and others reported in (2002) 5 SCC 659 at para. 9 as under:-
“Incidentally the object of the revisional jurisdiction as envisaged u/s 401 was to confer upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions of apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand in some underserved hardship to individuals. (See in
18
this context the decision of this Court in Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary) . The main question which the High Court has to consider in an application in revision is whether substantial justice has been done. If however, the same has been an appeal, the application would be entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of fact or law which he wishes to raise, but in revision the only question is whether the court should interfere in the interests of justice. Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.”
33. The revisional power is further explained in the case of R amesh Kumar Bajaj reported in (2009) 1 JCR 684 (Jhar) at para. 13 as follows:
“ It is well settled that revisional interference may be justified where:
(i) the decision is grossly erroneous.
(iii) the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence.
(iv) material evidence of the parties is not considered and
34. In the case Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of revisional power held in paragraph-5 as follows:
"5. The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to reappreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not
19
unreasonable or perverse."
35. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings and considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned courts below have passed well-reasoned judgements considering every aspect of the matter and every argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. There being no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgements, no interference is called for.
36. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid findings, both the criminal revision petitions are hereby dismissed .
37. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
38. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are cancelled.
39. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
40. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the court concerned.
41. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the learned court below through “email/FAX”.
Mukul
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Did the deceased's employment in a living person's name justify obtaining a death certificate in that living person's name?
Did non-framing of a specific charge under Section 120-B IPC affect the Village Level Worker's conviction?
Did the concurrent convictions disclose perversity or illegality warranting revisional interference?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jagannath Choudhary and othersRelied on¶87
Jagannath Choudhary and others reported in (2002) 5 SCC 659 · Who else cites this
Ramesh Kumar BajajRelied on¶91
R amesh Kumar Bajaj reported in (2009) 1 JCR 684 (Jhar)
Duli Chand v. Delhi AdministrationRelied on¶98
Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nepal Hembram
Dilip Mandal
The State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
