Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
4. It was submitted that PW-2's evidence is not D 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 E 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 F 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 ·. 1H had cross examined the appellant. He also deposed that he had already obtained the certified copies, Exs.01 and 04 of the memorandum statements of Mangat and Mohan on 1.3.1990 and had confronted the appellant with their originals SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF M.P. 1157 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] Exs.P14 and P21. He further deposed that in the certified copies, (Exs.DI and 04), 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) C 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. w.as written by him. Ex.DI, 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;
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 F 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 A 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 8 who was examined as PW-5 clearly established the accusations. 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. 8.8.8. Appeal dismissed.