SURESH CHANDRA SHARMAversusSTATE OF M.P.

                   [2009] 5 S.C.R. 1153


               SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA                            A
                              v.
                       STATE OF M.P.
            (Criminal APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2004)
                      APRIL 15, 2009
                                                                B
   [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
               AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860 - s. 194 - Sessions trial for
commission of offences punishable under ss.302, 302 rlw 34, C
394 and 397 /PC - Presiding Officer concluded that
appellant, the Investigating Officer in the case, fabricated false
evidence in course of trial by surreptitiously inserting timings
in various documents prepared during investigation, and
accordingly filed complaint against him - Conviction of D
appellant under s. 194 - Justification of- Held: Justified - The
defence lawyer himself deposed to have seen the
manipulation - On facts of the case and in view of the
evidences of the defence lawyer and of the then Presiding
Officer in the sessions trial, it is established that there was E
fabrication of official records by the appellant with the purpose
of getting the accused persons convicted of capital offence.

       Appellant was a Sub-Inspector of Police. During a
  sessions trial in which four accused persons were being
  tried for commission of offences punishable under ss.
                                                               F
  302, 302 r/w 34, 394 and 397 IPC, the Presiding Officer
. came to a prima facie conclusion that appellant, the
  Investigating Officer in the case, fabricated false evidence
  in course of the trial by surreptitiously inserting timings
  in various documents prepared during investigation, and G
 accordingly filed complaint against him. The trial court
·founa the appellant guilty and convicted him under s.194
 IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction. Hence the
 present appeal.
                              1153                             H
    1154      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.


A       Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: S. 194 IPC makes punishable the act of giving
  or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure - -
  conviction of capital offence. On the facts of the case it
  has been established that there was fabrication of official
B
  records by manipulating the records in large number of
  documents. The appellant was the investigating officer.
  The obvious purpose was to get the accused persons
  convicted. The purpose could have been achieved had
  the fabrication gone unnoticed. Additionally, the defence
c lawyer himself had deposed to have seen manipulation.
  Though, his conduct in not reporting the same to
  anybody is not certainly to be appreciated yet the
  evidentiary value thereof, and the evidence of the then
  Presiding Officer who was examined as PW-5 clearly
D established the accusations. That being so, the trial Court .
  and the High Court were justified in holding the appellant
  guilty. [Para 10) [1157-E-H; 1158-A-B]

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
E   No. 42 of 2004.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 14.08.2003 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal
    Appeal No. 449 of 1998.

F        AN. Singh, Jitin Sahai, B. Sahai and Anitha Shenow for
    the Appellants.




G
        Govind Goel, Ambuj Agarwal, Sukesh Ghosh and C.D.
    Singh for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                          -
         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is      lo.

    to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya               ,;


    Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant
H
        SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF M.P. 1155
                 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
     for offence punishable under Section 194 of the Indian Penal A
     Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). However, the sentence of three
     years rigorous imprisonment as was awarded by learned Ill
     Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, was reduced to one year
     and the fine of Rs.500/- as was imposed was enhanced to
     Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.                            B

         2. Background facts which led to the trial and subsequent
     conviction of the appellant are as follows:

           The appellant was a Sub-Inspector of Police. During the
     trial of Sessions Trial No.118/90, the Sessions Judge came to C
     a prima facie conclusion that the appellant who was the
     Investigating Officer in that case in the course of trial fabricated
     false evidence by surreptitiously inserting the timings in various
     documents prepared during investigation and that he thereby
     committed an offence punishable under Section 194 IPC. He D
     filed a complaint before the competent Magistrate who received
     the same on file and in due course committed the case to the
     Sessions Court for trial. To the complaint were annexed
     documents in which timings were inserted by the appellant and
     the copy of his evidence recorded in Sessions Trial No.118/ E
     90. In the said Sessions Trial No.118/90 four accused persons
     were tried for commission of offences punishable under
     Sections 302, 302 read with Section 34, 394 and 397 IPC.
     But they were acquitted.
          The documents in which the appellant was found to have F
     surreptitiously inserted the timings are memorandum, (Exs.P14,
     P20, P23 and P25), spot map (Ex.P11), Panchnama (Ex.P12
     and P13) and Seizure Memo Exs. (P16, P19 and P20).

          The trial Court as noted above found the accused appellant G
     guilty and directed his conviction. In appeal, the stand before
..   the High Court was that there was no evidence to show that the
     appellant had done any interpolation in any of the aforesaid
     documents during the course of trial as he had already
     mentioned timings in those documents before he had submitted H
                           "


     1156        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.


 A the challan papers in the Court and if the timings were left out
   in the carbon copies which were supplied to the accused
   persons it was a bona fide mistake on his part. It was also his
   stand that the appellant did not give or fabricate false evidence
   with an intention to procure conviction of the accused persons
 B in the concerned case who were being tried for murder and
   robbery. The High Court with reference to evidence of PWs
   2 and 5 and the statement of the appellant while being
   examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
   Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') held that the conviction
 C was in order.
          3. The stand taken before the High Court was reiterated
     by learned counsel for the appellant.
        4. It was submitted that PW-2's evidence is not
 D acceptable because he had at no earlier point of time stated
   that the manipulation was done in his presence.
       5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
   hand supported the judgment of the trial Court as affirmed by
 E the High Court.
        6. The learned Sessions Judge found subsequent
   insertion of the timing with different ink in Exs. P11, P12, P13,
   P16, P19 and P20. He has deposed that after appreciating
   the evidence in paragraph 26 of the judgment had observed
 F that in the interest of justice, a show cause notice was to be
   issued and thereafter challan for the prosecution of appellant
   for an offence under Section 194 IPC was to be served on
   him.
 G        7. PW-2 has deposed that he was the defence counsel
     for accused Mangal and Mohan in Sessions No.118/90 and ·.
     had cross examined the appellant. He also deposed that he         ...
     had already obtained the certified copies, Exs.01 and 04 of
     the memorandum statements of Mangat and Mohan on
     1.3.1990 and had confronted the appellant with their originals
1H
          SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF M.P. 1157
                   [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
       Exs.P14 and P21. He further deposed that in the certified           A
       copies, (Exs.DI and 04), timings are not mentioned as
       mentioned in their originals, i.e. Exs.P14 and P21, and he had
       requested the court to enquire as to when the timings were
       inserted in the originals. Chotelal (P.W.2) deposed in his cross-
       examination that he had actually seen the appellant making          B
       corrections in the original documents on 18.1.1991 though he
       did not complain to anyone.

             8. The appellant in his examination as an accused in
       the present case under Sections 313 of the Code has admitted
       that his evidence was recorded before Shri N.S. Azad (P.W.5) C
       and it was certified by his signature. The appellant, as a witness
       (P.W.16) in Sessions Trial No. 118/90 in paragraph 22 of his
       evidence, also admitted that in Ex.P14 time 9:20 a.m. w.as
       written by him. Ex.DI, which is certified copy of Ex.P14, was
                                                                          D .
       obtained by Chotelal (P.W.2) on 1.3.1990 in which no such
       time is mentioned. Ex.D1, certified copy of Ex.P14 was
       obtained after the filing of challan papers.
           9. It is to be noted that during cross-examination the
       appellant had admitted that the timing was mentioned later on;      E
             10. Section 194 appears in Chapter 11 of IPC under the
       heading "Of False Evidence and Offences against Public
       Justice". Section 194 makes punishable the act of giving or
       fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of F
       capital offence. Both Sections 194 and 195 provide for
       aggravated forms of giving or fabricating false evidence. The
       stress on these provisions is on giving or fabricating false
       evidence intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely
       that he will thereby cause any person to be convicted of an
       offence which is not capital by the law for the time being in G
       force in India. On the facts of the case it has been established
..     that there was fabrication of official records by manipulating
       the records in large number of documents. The appellant was
     , the investigating officer. The obvious purpose was to get the
       accused persons convicted. The purpose could have been H
    1158       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A achieved had the fabrication gone unnoticed. Additionally, the
  defence lawyer himself had deposed to have seen
  manipulation. Though, his conduct in not reporting the same
  to anybody is not certainly to be appreciated yet the evidentiary
  value thereof, and the evidence of the then Presiding Officer
8 who was examined as PW-5 clearly established the
  accusations.
          That being so, the trial Court and the High Court were
    justified in holding the appellant guilty.
C       11. That being so, the appeal deserves to be dismissed,
    which we direct.
    8.8.8.                                   Appeal dismissed.