Convictions for cheating by personation and giving false evidence upheld; custodial sentences reduced to time served.

The prosecution alleged that Ganeshiya Bai impersonated her deceased half-sister, Radha Bai, in revenue proceedings to claim inheritance rights in her mother’s property.

Birth and death records indicated that Radha Bai had been born in 1950 and died shortly thereafter; the prosecution also relied on evidence concerning Ganeshiya Bai’s appearance before the revenue authority as Radha Bai.

The trial court convicted her under Sections 419 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the appellate court affirmed the convictions. She challenged both conviction and sentence in revision.

1. Whether the evidence on record justified affirming the applicant’s convictions under Sections 419 and 193 IPC for impersonating Radha Bai and giving false evidence in revenue proceedings.

2. Whether, in view of the applicant’s age and the time elapsed since the incident, the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.

The Court considered Sections 419 and 193 IPC, under which the applicant had been convicted, and Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), referenced in relation to the continuation of bail bonds; it also referred to Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The judgment cites no precedents and does not set out a separate formulation of the statutory elements of the offences.

The Court relied on the birth and death registers, supported by the testimony of the official who produced them, as evidence that Radha Bai had died in 1950. It also considered the complaint and the evidence of the Naib Tehsildar, which supported the allegation that Ganeshiya Bai had appeared as Radha Bai in the revenue proceedings. Finding no basis to take a different view from the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, the Court affirmed the convictions.

On sentence, it considered that approximately 35 years had passed since the incident, the applicant’s age, and her 16 days in custody, and concluded that the period already undergone was sufficient.

As the applicant was on bail, she was not required to surrender; her bail bonds were to remain in force for six months under the cited statutory provisions.