Back
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Pawan Kumar Rajak – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through CBI Bihar – Respondent
No relevant information found. The legal document is a Patna High Court judgment (Criminal Appeal (SJ) Nos. 973 & 1346 of 2022, decided 18.12.2024) acquitting appellants in a CBI case involving allegations of criminal conspiracy (IPC S.120B), cheating (S.420), forgery (Ss.467, 468, 471), and PC Act Ss.13(1)(d)/13(2) related to fraudulent LIC policy loans via software misuse ("ADD Pay" option). Key issues include inadmissibility of secondary electronic evidence (screenshots of vouchers) without S.65B(4) Evidence Act certificate, lack of proof beyond suspicion, no hard-copy vouchers recovered, procedural lapses not proving intent/forgery/conspiracy, no beneficiary link to appellants, and hostile witnesses (e.g., PW-18, PW-22).
The document contains no references to dying declarations (Evidence Act S.32) or related circumstances (e.g., homicide statements, reliability, or evidentiary weight). All evidence discussed is oral testimony (22 PWs), documents (Exhibits 1-25 series: complaints, reports, screenshots, bank records, cheques), and electronic records ruled inadmissible.
JUDGMENT (CAV)
This appeal has been preferred by both appellants/convicts under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2022 and order of sentence dated 28.02.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI-1, Patna in Special Case No. 01 of 13 (arising out of R.C. No. 9(A) of 2013), whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted appellant/convict Pawan Kumar Rajak in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 973 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (in short “I.P.C.”), Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (in short the “P.C. Act”) and Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and appellant/convict Aftab Alam in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 1346 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 120B of IPC read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, where they have been sentenced accordingly:—
| Sl. No. | Name of appellant | Under Section | Sentence | Fine | In default of payment |
(1) Criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery by public servant – It may be a case of grave suspicion, but it is not a case where it can be said that prosecution established its case beyond reasonabl....
The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed fraud or were involved in a criminal conspiracy, leading to their acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.
Prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to uphold charges of forgery and conspiracy, relying instead on mere suspicion, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
Conviction for forgery and misappropriation requires clear proof of entrustment and intent to defraud, which was lacking, leading to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the offences of conspiracy and forgery against the appellants, with mere suspicion not serving as a substitute for valid evidence.
The judgment establishes the difficulty in proving conspiracy and the importance of inferring conspiracy from surrounding circumstances. It also emphasizes the severe consequences of corruption and t....
Convictions of conspiracy and corruption under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act cannot stand without sufficient corroborative evidence alongside accomplice testimonies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
