DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Pw12 Gabar Singh Bisht, Van Panchayat Nirikshak, Lansdowne, Garhwal lodged an FIR with Patti Seela III, Kotdwar, Garhwal on 25.08.1992, at 04:00 P.M, which was registered against accused Dharam Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 of IPC. The allegation was that the accused committed criminal breach of trust in respect of property, which was entrusted to him. After the investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468 of IPC was submitted against the accused. Accused was summoned to face the trial. Charge was framed against the accused under the selfsame offences i.e. under Sections 409 and 468 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Bharosa Singh, PW2 Ram Chandra, PW3 Jagdish, PW4 Ummed Singh, PW5 Mangal Singh, PW6 Dhyan Singh, PW7 Dara Singh, PW8 Gangotri Devi, PW9 Savitri Devi, PW10 Dikka Devi, PW11 Dheeraj Singh, PW12 Gabar Singh and PW13 Maharaj Singh Negi were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Raghuvir Singh was examined in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, vide judgment and order dated 01.07.2005 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC and directed the convict to undergo three years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. Accused was also convicted under Section 468 of IPC and was directed to undergo three years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter was directed to undergo six months' further simple imprisonment on both counts. Aggrieved against said order, criminal appeal was preferred, which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, vide judgment and order dated 24th July 2007, whereby judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate was affirmed. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 24th July 2007, present criminal revision was preferred.
(2.) Pw1 Bharosa Singh said, in his examinationin-chief, that he knew accused Dharam Singh, who was present in the court on the date of his deposition. The accused was a Sarpanch of Van Panchayat, Chotta Malla, Patti Seela for the last 15-20 years. PW1 said that he was never engaged in the Charagah Yojana (Pasture Scheme) in the year 1988-89 and never earned wages from that Scheme. PW1 Bharosa Singh was an illiterate person. He did not even append his signatures. PW1 was shown
papers no. 11A/9 and 11A/10, on which revenue stamps were affixed. PW1 denied affixing his thumb impression on the said revenue receipt. PW1 said that a forged paper was prepared by the accused, on which his forged thumb impression / signatures were made. Said papers were in the custody of the accused Dharam Singh.
(3.) Pw2 Ram Chandra said that Dharam Singh was known to him. PW2 was not the resident of Chotta Malla, but was a resident of Saneh. Bhuma Devi was PW2 Ram Chandra's wife and Dara Singh was his son. PW2 said that none of his family members worked under the accused in Charagah Yojana. None of his family members were engaged in said Scheme. There was no other person of his name and parentage in the locality. If Dharam Singh prepared some papers in his name, they were fake. PW2 reiterated that none of his family members earned wages from the Charagah Yojana.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.