Safiya Malik

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The Court held that the accused had misrepresented himself using another person’s matriculation certificate and thus rightfully convicted under Sections 416, 417, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The revision petition filed to challenge this conviction was found to lack merit. The Court stated that there was no illegality or perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the findings and sentence imposed upon the petitioner.

The Court also rejected the plea to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the accused. It reasoned that the offence committed was grave and involved misrepresentation in securing public employment. The Court found the evidentiary objections regarding secondary documentation to be untenable at the revisional stage since no objections were raised during trial.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores FIR Over Alleged Gold Loan Fraud | Says Patna HC Erred In Treating Complaint As Malicious Without Trial Evidence

As such, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below, bringing the matter to a conclusive end by directing the return of records and disposal of pending applications.

The case involved the petitioner, who had been convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 416, 417, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced accordingly. The charges stemmed from allegations that the petitioner, originally named Babu Ram, had assumed the identity of Mohan Singh by unlawfully using the latter's matriculation certificate to obtain employment.

The prosecution's case was based on a complaint filed by Jagjit Singh, the nephew of the accused. The complaint alleged that Babu Ram had used the stolen matriculation certificate of Mohan Singh, who had passed in the second division, while Babu Ram had only passed in third division. It was also alleged that the original record from Government High School, Rakkar, was manipulated.

An FIR was registered based on the complaint, and a detailed investigation followed. The prosecution presented sixteen witnesses, including school officials, relatives, and investigating officers. Key documents presented included:

• Matriculation certificate of Mohan Singh (Ex.P2)
• Revenue records (Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B)
• Panchayat Secretary certificate (Ex.PW7/A)
• Departmental orders (Ex.PA and Ex.PB)

Witnesses such as Surinder Kumar (PW12) and Narinder Kumar (PW10) verified the authenticity of the educational certificates and departmental records. SI Purshottam (PW16) conducted the investigation.

The Trial Court concluded that Mohan Singh and Babu Ram were two distinct individuals with different birth dates—1.5.1944 and 12.12.1942, respectively. It was found that the accused used Mohan Singh’s certificate to obtain a government job by misrepresentation.

Based on this, the accused was convicted under the relevant IPC sections and sentenced as follows:

• Under Section 419 IPC: Fine of ₹1,000/- or simple imprisonment for three months in default.
• Under Section 417 IPC: Fine of ₹500/- or simple imprisonment for one month in default.
• Under Section 420 IPC: Simple imprisonment for one year and fine of ₹1,000/- or simple imprisonment for three months in default.

The accused appealed before the Appellate Court, which upheld the Trial Court’s findings and confirmed the conviction and sentence.

In the High Court, the petitioner argued that:

• The case was based on animosity due to a land dispute with the complainant.
• Mohan Singh did not support the claim of certificate theft.
• The prosecution did not produce original employment records or character verification documents.
• The photocopies presented were inadmissible without proper foundation.
• The Trial Court failed to consider the affidavit Ex.PW9/B/Mark-X.
• He should be given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.
•  

Two defence witnesses were examined:

• Rakesh Kumar (DW1)
• Balwant Singh (DW2), the accused’s brother, who testified to the birth date of Babu Ram as 12.12.1942.

The High Court rejected these contentions, citing that the objections to secondary evidence had not been raised during trial. It held that there was sufficient material on record to establish that Mohan Singh and Babu Ram were not the same person.

The Court observed: "When secondary evidence is being led and no objection is raised, the same is deemed to be waived and cannot be taken during the appeal."

Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court stated: "Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently."

On the issue of identity, the Court recorded: "The school leaving certificate (Ex.PW12/A) shows that the date of birth of Babu Ram son of Relu Ram was 12.12.1942... The school leaving certificate of Mohan Singh (Ex. PZ) shows that Mohan Singh son of Shankaru Ram was born on 1.5.1944... these documents clearly prove that Mohan Singh and Babu Ram are two different persons."

Rejecting the defence reliance on affidavit Ex.DW1/A, the Court noted: "The words 'alias Shankar' have been added subsequently by putting a stroke. These words were not signed by the executant or Executive Magistrate who attested the affidavit."

On the failure to produce original employment records, the Court stated: "Failure to produce the record from the Education Department is not material. As per the defence of the accused, his name is Mohan Singh... the prosecution case that the accused represented himself to be Mohan Singh was never disputed."

On the plea regarding verification records, the Court noted: "The Court has to see the evidence placed before it and is not bound by any verification made by a third person."

About oral testimony, the Court noted: "These witnesses admitted the litigation with the accused... even if their testimonies are seen with utmost care and caution, these are duly corroborated by the documents on record."

The Court also stated: "There is no perversity in the finding of facts recorded by learned Courts below."

Regarding the Probation of Offenders Act, the Court observed: "The offence was heinous and learned Courts below had rightly declined the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused."

Quoting Milan Paul v. State of Tripura, the Court held: "The benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be granted to a person convicted of cheating."

The Court concluded its directions by stating: "The present revision is decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court."

Also Read: Officer Was Repeatedly Victimized Even After Death | Delhi High Court Quashes Recovery Order, Directs Payment of Retiral Dues With Interest

It affirmed that: "The accused misrepresented himself to be Mohan Singh and served as a teacher. He led the State to employ him based on the representation that he was Mohan Singh. Therefore, he was rightly held guilty of the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 416, 417 and 420 of IPC."

The High Court stated: "Therefore, the judgments and order passed by learned Courts below are sustainable. Hence, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed."

The Court directed: "Records be sent back forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajneesh Maniktala, Senior Advocate, with M/s Dinkar Bhaskar and Naresh Kumar Verma, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Case Title: Mohan Singh alias Babu Ram vs. State of H.P.
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:14072
Case Number: Cr. Revision No. 196 of 2012
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla

[Read/Download order]