Court Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pali (Raj.

)
Criminal Case No.______________

Rajasthan State
(Prosecution)
Versus
1. A. S/o …………… Age …………… Occupation …………… Resident ……………........
2. B S/o …………… Age …………… Occupation …………… Resident ……………........

(Accussed)

Present Advocate:
Shri _____________Additional Public Prosecutor, Prosecution for
Mr. _____________ Advocate, Defence for

Judgment
(Declared on ________ 2019)

1. The accused persons A and B stand charged for committing offence under section
427, 457, 465 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. There are no undisputed facts in the case.

3. The prosecution story in brief is as follows that the accused A and B created
a forged question paper in order to pass the semester examination, for
which they were not prepared, and went to the office of Professor 'X' at
about 9 a.m. Which was located in the department building by breaking
the window of the office. He also took with him a question paper prepared
by him. He put his question paper in place of the question paper prepared
by Professor X. When the guard on duty 'G' went round the rear of the
building, he saw light coming from the broken window of Professor X's
room. He reached there and caught the accused persons red handed. ,
However they gave him Rs 2000 to keep his mouth shut and left
immediately. After this the guard called the police. Sub Inspector reached
the spot and a spot map was prepared. The professor's question paper
was found half-burnt on the floor in the corner of the room. The accused
were arrested and an identification parade was conducted, in which the
guard identified the accused. On the basis of the joint disclosure statement

www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now

 of the accused persons, a copy of the substituted question paper was
found from their room in the hostel. After completion of the research,
Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (referred to as
DPRS) The charge sheet was presented under which this Court in D.P.No.
Cognizance was taken under section 190(b) of Cr.

4. The charges were read out and explained to the accused persons, they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and in their personal examination
under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all the charges were
denied by them and this defence was taken. That he has not committed
any crime and is being falsely implicated because he misbehaved with
Professor X in the class.

Point for determination

I. whether the accused persons commit the offense (Section 427 IPC)
by causing mischief to the property with criminal intent and
knowledge on the date and time and place alleged or not?
II. whether the accused persons commit the crime by breaking house
at night (Section 457 IPC) with the intention of committing the crime
on the alleged date and time and place?
III. whether the accused persons commit the crime by forgery of the
document (Section 465 IPC) on the alleged date and time and place?
IV. Acquittal or conviction, if any?

Determination of point I, II, III, IV and

Reason for assessment

5. All the points are being analysed and determined simultaneously to avoid
repetition of evidence and unnecessary burden on the court record. The
burden of proving these points beyond reasonable doubt is on the
prosecution in accordance with Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'IEA') and due to the fundamental
principles of criminal jurisprudence i.e. presumption of innocence.
Prosecution by P.W. 1 (Gard G) was examined who stated that on the night
of the incident he was on duty and saw that the window of the building
was broken and light was coming out. When he saw that A and B were
exchanging papers there, he giving 2000 rupees and asked to remain
silent, After that the police was informed on the basis of which FIR ex. P1
recorded, the witness remained irrebuttable in cross-examination and the
witness is credible. P.W. 2 (Investigating Officer) stated his statement

www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now

 regarding the fact of receiving the call from the guard on the night
concerned and the arrest memo regarding the arrest of the accused
persons in the form of ex. P2 and spot map to ex. As P3 and also stated
about the forged question paper recovered by P.W. 2 (Inquiry Officer)
remained irrebuttable and credible in his cross-examination. W. 3
(Professor X) was examined who testified that A and B were his students
and P.W. 3 said that the question papers received from his office and from
the hostel of A and B were identical and that the question papers were to
be exchanged. The fact of is correct. P.W. 3 His copy remained irrebuttable
and reliable in the examination.

6. Accused A and B got examined as a defence witness DW 1 and DW 2 and

both say that they have been falsely implicated because a few days back
Prof. X the class, he misbehaved with him and this is a enmity act,
moreover no witness has been examined in the defence.

Thus, questions 1, 2 and 3 have been proved by the prosecution beyond

doubt and accused A and B have caused mischief by causing damage to
the property of the college which is punishable under Section 427 of IPC
and committed night-lurking-trespass with intent to commit an offense
which is punishable under section 457 of the I.P.C. and committed the
offense of forgery under section 465 of IPC.

7. Therefore, the guilt of the accused has been proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt and the Court holds the accused guilty of the
offense under section 427, 457, 465 of the IPC.

8. Pronouncement of judgment was temporarily adjourned to hear the

accused on the question of sentence under Section 248(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.

signature and seal

www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now

 Re-Hearing

9. Heard the prosecution and the defense on the question of sentence. While
the prosecution prayed for strict punishment, the accused pleaded for
leniency. This Court after analyzing the factual aspect of the case that the
offense committed is of serious nature, treating such an accused leniently
would create a sense of insecurity among the public. Therefore, this Court
does not consider this case as a case where the benefit of probation can
be granted to the accused under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure or Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Therefore, keeping in view the relevant facts and circumstances, this Court
passes the following sentence:

S. Name Convicted Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment

no of under in lieu of fine
Accused Section
(IPC)
1. A1 427 6 Months 500 1 Month
2. A1 457 2 Years 1000 2 Months
3. A1 465 1 Year 1000 2 Months
4. A2 427 6 Months 500 1 Month
5. A2 457 2 Years 1000 2 Months
6. A2 465 1 Year 1000 2 Months

10. As per Section 31 of the Cr.P.C, the punishment for all the offenses shall
run concurrently.

11. Imprisonment in lieu of fine shall be served by the accused after serving
the actual period of sentence under Section 30(2) of the CrPC.

12. A statement should be prepared under Section 428 of the IPC to adjust the
amount of imprisonment suffered by the accused persons during
investigation, investigation and trial against the sentence awarded to
them.

13. The bail bonds of the accused persons should be cancelled and they should
be taken into custody so that the awarded sentence can be executed.

14. The accused persons should execute bail bonds and bonds under section
437A of the IPC to ensure their presence before the Appellate Court.

www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now

15. Out of the total fine amount of Rs._____, Rs._____ to be paid to the victim as
compensation under section 357 IPC.

16. A copy of the decision should be provided to the accused free of cost as
per section 363 of the IPC.

Signature and Seal

The judgment was pronounced in writing in open court.

Signature and Seal

www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now

Linking
APP