SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 1153 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 1153 
SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2004) 
APRIL 15, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA 
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
A 
B 
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. 
302, 302 r/w 34, 394 and 397 IPC, the Presiding Officer 
F 
. 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 
B 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 
c 
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 
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. 
Govind Goel, Ambuj Agarwal, Sukesh Ghosh and C.D. 
Singh for the Respondents. 
-
G 
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 insert

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