Evidence corroborating multiple distinct offences remains admissible for one charge even if the accused is acquitted of another charge based on the same evidence. Furthermore, providing thumb impressions for identification does not constitute self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 467 and 109; Indian Registration Act - Section 82(c); Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 307; Constitution of India - Article 20(3) - Forgery of valuable security and false personation - Reference to High Court - Admissibility of evidence - In a reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the evidence can properly support either a verdict of guilty or not guilty, the view of the jury must prevail as they are the judges of fact. A reference is justified only if the High Court holds that no reasonable body of men could have reached the conclusion arrived at by the jury. (Para 3)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 20(3) - Self-incrimination - Giving of thumb impressions, palm, foot or finger impressions, or specimen writing does not amount to "being a witness" under Article 20(3). Self-incrimination involves conveying information based on personal knowledge and does not include the mechanical process of producing documents or impressions for identification. (Para 4)

(C) Evidence - Corroboration - Distinct offences - Forging a valuable security and the presentation of that security for registration are two distinct offences. An item of evidence may corroborate charges for more than one offence; therefore, an acquittal for one such offence does not render that evidence inadmissible when assessing criminality for another offence corroborated thereby. The issue is one of the weight to be given to the evidence, not its admissibility. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
An accused was charged with forging a valuable security and falsely personating another to present a document for registration, while a second accused was charged with abetment. The jury found the accused guilty of forgery, but the trial judge, doubting the reliability of the evidence, referred the matter to the High Court under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and acquitted the accused of the offences under the Registration Act. The High Court rejected the reference and convicted the accused of forgery and abetment.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence of witnesses and the expert comparison of thumb impressions were sufficient to support the jury's verdict. It was held that the trial judge's acquittal of the accused regarding the registration offence did not bar the High Court from relying on the same evidence to convict them of forgery.

Issues: Whether the High Court was competent to convict the appellants of forging a valuable security based on evidence that was not accepted by the trial court for the purpose of convicting them of false personation under the Registration Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since forging a security and presenting it for registration are distinct offences, evidence corroborating both can be used to establish guilt for one even if the accused is acquitted of the other. Additionally, the court reaffirmed that thumb impressions are admissible and do not violate the privilege against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

SHAH, J. The first appellant. Sekender Sheikh. was charged in a trial held before the Additional Sessions Judge, Murshidabad in the State of West Bengal for the offences of forging a valuable scurity punishable under S. 467 I. P. Code and of falsely personating another in such, assumed character and presenting a document for registration punishable under S. 82(c) of Indian Registration Act. The second appellant. Hasibuadin Sheikh . was charged with abetment of these offences. The trial for the offences of forging a valuable security and abetment thereof was held by the Sessions Judge sitting with a jury and for the offences under the Registration Act without a jury. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty by a majority of 4 to 3 against the appellants for the offences of forging a valuable security and abetment thereof, but the Judge did not accept the verdict and made a reference under S. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the High Court of Calcutta, because in his view there was absolutely no reliable evidence against the two appellants in respect of the offence of forging a valuable security and that it was in the interests of justice to refer the case to the High Court. The Sessions Judge acquitted the two appellants of offences under the Indian Registration Act. The High Court declined to accept the reference and convicted the two appellants respectively of the offences punishable under S. 462 and S. 467 read with S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. With certificate of fitness granted by the High Court under Art. 134 (1) (c) the appellants have appealed to this Court.

(2) The charges against the first appellant were.

(i) that on or about January 15, 1958 he had in the town Berhampore forged a Heba-nama in respect of certain property in favour of one Ali Hussain purporting to execute the same in the name of one Kaimuddin of Debkundu and that the execution of the document was made with intent to cause the said Kaimuddin to part with his property and to commit fraud; and

(ii) that on the same day he had falsely personated Kaimuddin Sheikh and in that assumed character had presented for registration the Hebanama in the Barhampore sub-registry and had affixed his thumb impressions claiming to be Kaimuddin Sheikh.

The second appellant was charged with abetting the first appellant in the commission of the two offences by identifying the first appellant and Kaimuddin Sheikh. At the trial the prosecution examined one Swarana Kumar Dey who testified that he had engrossed the Heba-nama in favour of Ali Hussain which was executed by the first appellant purporting to do so as Kaimuddin Sheikh, that the first appellant had impressed his thumb mark on the document before him in token of execution of the Hebajnama, that the first appellant had represented himself to be Kaimuddin Sheikh, and that the executant of the document was identified before him as Kaimuddin Sheikh by the second appellant Hasibuddin Sheikh. Kaijnuddin Sheikh testified that he had not executed any Hebanama in favour of Ali Hussain and that he had not impressed his thumb-mark on any document in the presence of Swarana Kumar Dey. A certified copy of the Heba-nama was shown to the witness and he denied having executed and presented the original thereof before the Sub-Registrar. Evidence was also tendered that the thumb impressions of the two appellants were taken by the investigating officer in the presence of a Magistrate and those specimen thumb impressions were compared with the thumb impressions in the register at the subregistry at Berhampore by a hand-writing expert and that ,the thumb impressions of the first appellant tallied with the thumb impressions in the said register and not with the thumb impressions of Kaimuddin Sheikh. In the view of the High Court, this evidence was sufficient to establish against the two appellants the offences of forging a valuable security and abetmen