MOHINDER SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 519 · Decided: 05-03-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
) 
H 
MOHINDER SINGH & ANR. 
v 
STATE 0!' HARYANA 
March 5, 1974 · 
[H. R. KHANNA AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.j 
519 
Indian Penal Code, Ss.409, read with s.109-Whether conviction could be sustabred 
11n oral evidence ir. the Jae~ flf negative written evidence-Illiteracy -Ho~v for benefit 
could be given. 
The complainant who was Sarpanch of gram panchayat asked the 
secor.~ 
appellant, his pre,decessor, to make over the records of the gram panchayat, transfer its 
accounts and hand over the money belonging to the gram panchayat to him. The 
second appellant put him off. \Vhen he made a complaint to higher authorities the 
second appelJant transferred some amount to the complainant, but not the whole 
of it. The complainant tiled a suit in Civil Court for recovery Or the balance and 
rendition of accounts in respect of the unpaid amount which was also large. The 
suit of the complainant for rendition of accounts was dismissed by the Civil Court. 
accepting the evidence of the second appellant and his plea that the accounts bet\1.'ecn 
the parties had been settled. The complainant filed a complaint alleging that the 
first appellant, an advocate and the second appellant had made him sign an official 
receipt of the gram panchayat with its official seal affixed on the receipt and took 
it without making the payment of money to him. The second appellant was tried 
for offences under sections 409, 461 read with 109 and 474 Indian Penal Code and 
the first appellant under s.409 read with s.109, section 467 read with s.109 Indiah 
Penal Code and were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment 
and fine. The High Court confirmed their conviction and sentences. Before the 
trial court the complainant led oral evidence to prove that the appellants had taken 
advantage of his il!iteracy and a trick was played upon him by them. 
AI1owing the appeals to this Court, 
1-IELD : There are de<ir infirrrdties in the prosecution ca<;e. 
It is not possible 
to sustain the conviction of the accused. Oral evidence which runs counter to an 
ac!rnission contained in writing signed by a party in the very nature of things is a 
,·ery \\'eak piece of evidence and cannot be accepted without a grain of salt. Jn 
the face of the finding of the Civil Court it would be incongruous to convict the 
second appellant on 
th! 
bisis that th! amJT1t of th~ ·Gra.m PJn.;hayat 
\\'as still due from him. The complainant may be illiterate but there must be a 
limit up to which the benefit of illiteracy can be extended to him. The fact that 
the complainant was illiterate could not induce the court to ignore the infirmities 
in his evidence or to fill in lacunae in the prosecution case.[524B--C,525D-D,526A-B] 
This fact would also not justify the benefit cf the doubt Peing given to the prose-
cution instead of to the accused. [526B] 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 
221 of 1970 A-S 47 of 1971. 
Appoals by spocial leave from the judgment and order dated the 
· 8th October, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandi-
garh in Criminal Appoals Nos. 374 and 376of19(0. 
Nuruddin· Ahmad and U.P. Singh, for the appellant,. 
N. N. Goswamy and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHANNA, J.-Surat Singh and Mohinder Singh Advocate were 
tried in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Karna! for various. 
520 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
£19741 3 S.C.R. 
offences. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Surat 
Singh under section 409 Indian Penal Code, section 467 read with 
section 109 Indian Penal Code and section 474 Indian Penal Code 
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 
two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 or in default to undergo 
rigorous imprisonment for a further period of eight months on the 
irst count, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one 
year on the second count and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 
one year on the third count. Mohinder Singh accused was convicted 
under section 409 read with section 109 Indian l"enal Code and section 
467 read with section 109 Indian Penal Code and was s.entenced to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a 
inc of Rs. 25,000 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a 
further period of eight months on the first count and to undergo rigo-
rou• imprisonment for a period of one year on the second count. 
The oubstantive

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.