A local court here Saturday sentenced a woman to one-year imprisonment after finding her guilty of impersonation and cheating.
After hearing additional public prosecutor Khurshid Ahmad Khan and defence counsel Abdul Majeed Najar, third additional munsiff Srinagar, Fozia Paul said the “prosecution story has been proved by all the witnesses who have corroborated all the facts of case.”
“I opine that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the commission of offense under section 419 RPC (impersonation) and 420 RPC (cheating) beyond reasonable doubt). As such, the accused is liable to be convicted,” the court said.
It sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and imposed a fine of Rs 3,000 on her under section 419 of Ranbir Penal Code.
“Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and is imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 under section 420 RPC,” the court said, adding, “Both the sentences shall run concurrently.”
It said in case of default in payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
In its detailed 66-page judgment, the court referred to various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
“I scarcely find any merit in the submission made by the counsel for the accused so as to discard prosecution witness statements. Since all the witnesses examined are natural witnesses of the occurrence so their statements are to be believed, when the defense has not been able to shake the witnesses in their cross examinations,” the court said.
While appreciating the prosecution evidence, the court said its case was based on “direct ocular evidence and such ocular evidence prove the factum of guilt of the accused.”
“If the direct evidence is available and proves the factum of guilt of accused, it is sufficient to convict the accused for the commission of offense committed by him,” the court said while referring to various case laws.
The court said it was crystal clear that the accused joined the government department under SRO 43 in place of her sister by impersonation.
The court said it was also established that she took salary from the department till the time she was working there.
“Thus, it implies that the accused had a dishonest intention to have wrongful gain by deceiving the department by impersonating herself in place of her sister who was the actual appointee under the SRO 43,” the court said.