The reliance solely on expert evidence without corroboration can lead to erroneous convictions, especially when a civil ruling has nullified the document in question.

ORDER :

S. RACHAIAH, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 28.02.2012 and 14.03.2012 in C.C No.5277/1999 and C.C.No.3658/2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, and its confirmation judgment and order dated 16.09.2017 in Crl.A.Nos.26, 27 and 34 of 2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi District, Udupi, wherein the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioners are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 467, 471 r/w 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’). As against the inadequacy of the sentence passed by the Trial Court, the complainant had preferred two appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos.38 and 39 of 2012 to enhance the sentence and the same was also dismissed by the Appellate Court.

2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience.

Brief facts of the case:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Nos.1 to 4 with a dishonest common intention to grab the property belonging to Francis Cutino bearing Sy.No.101/5 measuring 1 acre 59 cents, situated at Pilaru village, Udupi Taluk, all the accused persons entered into a conspiracy on 17.09.1998, at about 3.40 p.m., in such a way that accused No.2 – Ronald Gomes, at the instance of accused No.1, by misrepresenting and forged the signatures and thumb impression of Francis Cutino by impersonation and got the registered sale deed in favour of accused No.1. The accused Nos.3 and 4 have signed the sale deed as witnesses.

4. Based on the forged sale deed, the accused No.1 got mutated the property in his name and committed criminal trespass. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation. The respondent - Police after registering the case, conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined, in all, 20 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 20 and got marked 79 documents as per Exhibits P1 to P79. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty of the offences stated supra.

6. Heard Sri S Mahesh for Sri Dinesh Kumar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court are contrary to the law and probabilities of the case.

8. It is further submitted that the Courts below have committed serious errors in relying on the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 7, 16 and 17 who are the interested witnesses and their testimonies are not consistent and cogent. In fact, their evidence is full of inconsistencies and contradictions.

9. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 clearly reveal that Francis Cutino was not available to prove his alleged signature found on Ex.P5. Further, the persons who were acquainted with the said signatures were also not examined. The Investigating Officer has not conducted a proper investigation in respect of Ex.P5. The execution of the old sale deed, to prove that it is genuine and original, the said document was not traced and marked.

10. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine the attesting witnesses of Ex