This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11.03.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No. 17/1991, thereby quashing order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate in R.C.C. No. 33/1989 dated 01.02.1991.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :

The complainant is Murlidhar S/o Mohanlal Randad R/o Nandgaon, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. He is agriculturist by occupation. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 are resident of village Satona and accused No. 5 is resident of village Tidi-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani. The accused No. 1 to 5 are agriculturists by occupation. Accused No. 1 is the wife of accused No. 2. Accused No. 2 and 3 are real brothers.

3. It is the prosecution case that, complainant Murlidhar is adopted son of one Rambhabai Mohanlal Randad. Rambhabai was the owner of field Gat No. 48 situated at village Aher-Borgaon. She had faith on God Maroti. Hence, she gifted field Gat No. 48 to the temple of Got Maroti and handed over the possession of field Gat No. 48 to the panch committee for the use f temple of God Maroti in the year 1961 and since the year 1961, panch committee was in the possession of Gat No. 48.

4. After the death of Rambhabai, complainant became the owner of the said field. On 12.11.1986 Murlidhar executed registered gift-deed in favour of panch committee. Behind the back of Murlidhar, Rama Lalu Rathod (accused No. 3), Keshav Lalu Rathod (accused No. 2) and Dwarkabai Keshav Rathod (accused No. 1) on 22.10.1986 by act of impersonation obtained the signature of complainant from such other person and got executed sale deed purported to have been executed by the complainant. Murlidhar came to know about this fact on 12.11.1986 about execution of sale deeds. Such sale deeds were forged one. Such sale deeds were forged with intent to cause loss to the complainant and panch committee and for the benefit of aforesaid three accused.

5. It is the prosecution case that, sale deeds referred above do not bear the signature of complainant or his thumb-impression. Due to the forged sale deeds, it had caused damage to the complainant and panch committee. On the strength of forged sale deeds, aforesaid accused were making the efforts to dispossess the panch committee in whose possession aforesaid lands were given. The accused Nos. 4 and 5 attested such forged sale deeds.

6. The present complaint was filed by Murlidhar on 23.11.1986 at Police Station, Sailu, on the basis of which crime was registered against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 418, 420, 467 and 468 r/w Sec. 34 of the I. P. Code. Accused were arrested on 01.10.1987. Investigation was carried out. During the investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded. After due investigation, accused were charge sheeted.

7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani after considering the evidence and hearing the parties acquitted the accused/respondents herein. Hence this appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the order of acquittal.

The learned A.P.P. appearing for the appellant/State submitted that, the order passed by the Trial Court was in consonance with the evidence brought on record. The property is in possession of the panch committee. The said property was handed over to the panch committee and is in possession of the panch committee since long. Even during life time of Rambhabai the said property was in possession of the panch committee. It is further submitted that, the complainant himself renounces his signature on the sale deed and, therefore, there remains a little doubt to suspect the prosecution case. It is further submitted that, the Trial Court has given reasons for not forwarding the documents for examination of hand writing expert. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. would submit that, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court may be confirmed.

The le