Partly allowed

Karamjit Singh v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Mar 2010CRR/1255/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court maintained the conviction of the appellant under Section 420 IPC for cheating by confirmed evidence despite hostile witnesses. Considering a fifteen-year delay, the Court reduced the sentence from three years to one year rigorous imprisonment while dismissing the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from three years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment; fine and default clause unaltered.

Karamjit Singh Vs State of Pb. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl.Revn. NO.1255 of 2002 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl.Revn. NO.1255 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: March 12, 2010

Karamjit Singh

...PETITIONER

VS.

State of Punjab

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL

¶10

PRESENT: Mr.M.S.Bajwa, Advocate Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶12

MOHINDER PAL, J.

¶13

Petitioner Karamjit Singh was convicted by the trial Court under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, remaining offences against the petitioner were not proved. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition.

¶14

The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on

¶15

Crl.Revn. NO.1255 of 2002

¶16

¶17

15.08.1995 ASI Jarnail Singh recorded the statement of Amar Singh complainant wherein he stated that petitioner Karamjit Singh used to come to their village quite often as he was known to him. About 7/8 months ago, Karamjit Singh told him that he was having links with the officers in District Social Welfare Office and he could help him in getting the old age pension. The complainant wanted his old age pension and he requested Karamjit Singh to help him in getting the pension. Karamjit Singh told him that it would cost him Rs.600/-, out of which Rs.300/- would be given to the officers and the remaining amount would be spent for other expenses. In the meantime, Jagir Singh Sarpanch of the village also reached there. The complainant gave a sum of Rs.300/- to the accused and assured that the remaining amount would be paid to the accused after grant of pension. After about four months Karamjit Singh accused came to him and delivered a card bearing the seal of the District Social Welfare Officer. The accused told the complainant to wait for another 15/20 days for the pension. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith Jagir Singh went to the office of District Social Welfare Office and enquired about his pension on showing his card. The concerned official told him that his number is not on the record of office for getting old age pension. On the next day, the complainant went to the village of Karamjit Singh accused and told him that the card given by him was forged. The complainant further disclosed that many other persons of the village have been cheated by the accused. The card given by the accused was handed over to the police. The instant case was registered on the basis of statement made by Amar Singh-complainant.

¶18

After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted against the accused in

¶19

Crl.Revn. NO.1255 of 2002

¶20

¶21

the Court.

¶22

The accused was charged under Sections 420/464/468/471/472/473 of the Code. He did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

¶23

At the trial, the prosecution examined Mohidner Kumar complainant PW1, Santi PW2, Lakhwinder Singh PW3, Pritam Kaur PW4, Kartar Kaur PW5, Bans Kaur PW6, Paramjit Kaur PW7 and Milkha Singh PW8.

¶24

In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner Karamjit Singh denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication. In defence, Gulzar Singh DW1 was examined.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with his assistance.

¶26

The prosecution has proved the allegations against the accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, Pritam Kaur PW4, Kartar Kaur PW5, Bans Kaur PW6, Paramjit Kaur PW7 and Milkha Singh PW8 have fully supported the case of the prosecution. There was no reason for the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. While deposing further Mohinder Kaur PW1 and Shanti PW2 did not support the case of the prosecution and were got declared hostile. However, a verdict of acquittal cannot follow the moment the witnesses turn hostile and dispensation of justice is not dependent upon the witnesses who make efforts to hold the law to ransom. Once the prosecution case is established on record by the other cogent and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution, non-supporting of its case by

¶27

Crl.Revn. NO.1255 of 2002

¶28

¶29

the witnesses, who appeared to have been won over by the accused does not at all affect the prosecution case. It has been pointed out that ASI Jarnail Singh Investigating Officer has also not been examined by the prosecution. In the present case, the only purpose of the Investigating Officer was to collect the evidence. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer will not affect the merits of the prosecution case nor it will cause any prejudice to the petitioner as there is sufficient evidence connecting the accused with the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any flaw in the prosecution case, which otherwise stands proved on record. Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has rightly been convicted in this case. As such, conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by both the Courts below, is maintained.

¶30

However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that Sword of Damocles has remained hanging on the head of the petitioner-accused for fifteen years as the case relates to 15.08.1995, ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine and default clause are left unaltered. I order accordingly.

¶31

With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this revision petition is dismissed.

¶32

( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE

¶33

March 12, 2010 jt

Karamjit Singh v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karamjit Singh v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Vs Rajinder Kumar @Raju

Kanshi Ram and Another Vs State of Haryana

The State (U.T.Chd.) Vs Ravinder Kumar etc.

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Hy.

Laxman Vs State of Haryana

Ranbir Vs State of Haryana and Ors.