REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2004

Suresh Chandra Sharma   ..Appellant

Versus

State of M.P.  ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge

of  the  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court  upholding  the  conviction  of  the

appellant  for  offence  punishable  under  Section  194  of  the  Indian  Penal

Code,  1860  (in  short  the  ‘IPC’).  However,  the  sentence  of  three  years

rigorous imprisonment as was awarded by learned III 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.  

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  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 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.118/90. 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.  

2

The  documents  in  which  the  appellant  was  found  to  have

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 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 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 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 was in order.  

3

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 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 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 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.  

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,

4

Exs.D1 and D4 of the memorandum statements of Mangal and Mohan on

1.3.1990 and had confronted the appellant with their originals Exs.P14 and

P21.  He  further  deposed  that  in  the  certified  copies,  (Exs.Dl  and  D4),

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 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) 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. was written

by him.  Ex.Dl, which is certified copy of Ex.P14, was 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.  

5

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 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 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 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  who was examined as PW-5 clearly established the

accusations.

6

That being so, the trial Court and the High Court were justified in holding

the appellant guilty.  

11. That being so, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, which we direct.

………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………….J. (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)

………………………………….J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi, April 15, 2009

7