AB. REHMAN MANROO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 14.07.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, convicting the appellant for the commission of offences under Sections 420 and 463 RPC, and the order of sentencing dated 16.07.2012 awarding simple imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 10,000.00 for the commission of offence under Section 420 RPC; two years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000.00 each for the commission of offences under Sections 463 and 471 RPC. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been ordered to undergo a further simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 420 RPC and six months for each of the offences under Sections 463/471 RPC. The grounds of appeal taken in the memo of appeal are that out of the 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution in the Challan, only ten were examined by it at the trial and the most important witnesses, namely, Mr. K.K. Matoo, Chief Engineer Electric Planning and Designing; Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, complainant, who had lodged the FIR against the appellant; Mr. Ifadul Mujtaba, SP, Headquarter (VOK); and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Constable, were not produced and examined; therefore, the presumption would be that they would not have supported the prosecution. It is stated that the witnesses examined by the prosecution in their depositions have not stated anything against the appellant and that the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant purely on the basis of suspicion. It is also stated in the memo of appeal that there was no material produced by the prosecution during the course of trial which could connect the appellant with the commission of the crime, but the trial Judge, on a fanciful logic, convicted and sentenced the appellant on the plea that the case had to end either in conviction or acquittal.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter.

(3.) I may at the very outset say that the impugned judgment is totally perfunctory and perverse. The prosecution case before the trial court was this: That on 05.08.2002, PW2, Shri Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Superintending Engineer, Electrical Planning and Design Circle, Srinagar, lodged a written report to the effect that the accused named in the challan had tampered with and changed the date of birth recorded in his service book/service record from 03.08.1936 to 03.08.1940. According to the date of birth of the accused, he had to retire on 31.08.1994, but he continued in service upto 31.03.1997 and has drawn his salary continuously from 01.09.1994 to 31.03.1997. It was alleged that the accused had been the sole custodian of his service book throughout the period he had remained posted in the Circle and he had submitted the service book in August 2000. During the course of investigation it was revealed that the accused had tampered with his service book and initially changed his date of birth from 03.08.1936 to 03.08.1940 and then again tampered with it reversing the entries from 03.08.1940 to 03.08.1936. It was alleged that the accused by overstaying in service had drawn salary to the tune of Rs. 1,58,920.00. During the course of investigation the photocopy of the Matriculation certificate of the accused recording his date of birth as 03.08.1940 was got verified from the Board of School Education and they reported that as per records his date of birth was recorded as 03.08.1936. On the aforesaid report, case FIR No. 43/2002 was registered and, after completion of the investigation, challan under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/201 RPC was presented before the Court.