Back
2022 Supreme(Chh) 338
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J.
State of Madhya Pradesh(now C.G.) through S.H.O. P.S. Bartalab, District Rajnandgaon - Appellant
Vs.
Ramdas S/o Ubhay Ram Sahu - Respondent
CRA No. 1089 of 2000
Decided On : 07-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant/State : Mr. Lalit Jangde, G.A.
For the Respondents: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Mr. Raja Sharma, Adv. & Mr. A. K. Samantre, Adv.
The judgment emphasizes the legal principles of presumption of innocence, benefit of reasonable doubt, and the reluctance to interfere with the trial court's findings unless they are palpably wrong or based on an erroneous view of the law.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Case - IPC 419, 420, 467, 471 - The judgment discusses the acquittal of the respondents from charges under Sections 419, 420, 467 & 471 of the IPC. The court analyzes the evidence, including witness statements and the lack of documentary evidence, and refers to the legal principles established in the matter of Murlidhar alias Gidda & Another Vs. State of Karnataka (2014) 5 SCC 730.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents were acquitted from charges under Sections 419, 420, 467 & 471 of the IPC by the trial court. The prosecution alleged that the respondents impersonated someone to obtain a loan, but the trial court found the evidence insufficient to prove guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and legal principles. It referenced the legal position that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence, the benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused, and the reluctance to interfere with the trial court's findings unless they are palpably wrong or based on an erroneous view of the law.
Final Decision: The appeal by the Petitioner/State was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the respondents from the charges under Sections 419, 420, 467 & 471 of the IPC.
ORDER :
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Petitioner/State against the impugned judgment of dated 05.10.1999, whereby the respondents herein have been acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467 & 471 of the IPC by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh (M.P.) (Now Chhattisgarh), in Criminal Case No. 124/1993.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.08.1991, respondent Vimla Bai from Village Sendri obtained loan of Rs. 6,000/ from Seva Sahkari Samiti, Dongargarh Branch under the I.R.D.B. Plan for the purpose of purchasing Bullockcart with oxen impersonating herself as Name Bai belonging to the Tribal community. Respondent Ramdas is husband of respondent Vimla Bai and it is found that he along with other respondents forged the documents in the name of Namebai. Thereafter, Harishchandra, ViceChairman of Seva Sahkari Samiti, Thakurtola (PW1) made a written complaint to the Thana Inspector, Bortalab regarding the same. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and charges were framed under Sections 420 & 471 of IPC against the respondent Ramdas, under Sections 419 & 420 of IPC against the respondent Vimla Bai and under Sections 467 & 471 of IPC against the other respondents/accused.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents/accused, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of the respondents herein were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied guilt.
4. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges against which the appeal has been preferred.
5. Mr. Lalit Jangde, learned State counsel would submit that the judgment passed by the Court below is erroneous, illegal and bad in law as the trial Court failed to see that the said loan was got sanctioned in the name of Namebai and a witness Kotwar (PW4) has specifically stated that the photograph posted on the application was not of Nembai. Learned Court below further failed to see that the report of handwriting expert is a public document and the court has ample power to summon a witness but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact. As the Court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record in its true perspective, the finding and conclusions drawn by the Court below are liable to be dismissed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there is no documentary evidence available on record which can prove the guilt of respondents. As such, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance in the matter of Murlidhar alias Gidda & Another Vs. State of Karnataka passed in (2014) 5 SCC 730.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. The previous order sheets of this case show that during the pendency of this appeal, respondents No. 4 & 5 namely Heeralal and Limbaji respectively, are died. So, this appeal in respect of both the respondents is abated.
9. Before the trial Court, complainant Harishchandra (PW1) admitted his signature on FIR and as well as on written complaint. He stated that he was suffering from illhealth last year due to which he has the problem of oblivion, therefore, he was unable to narrate the matter in detail, he did not state anything against the respondents. Ramlal (PW2) stated in para 4 that on the loan documents the photograph was affixed of Vimla Bai and not of Namebai which is contradiction as per the prosecution case. Further Sevak (PW5) stated in his statement that he saw the picture of Namebai for the first time in the Court. Learned trial Court found that prosecution has not examined handwriting expert and failed to prove this fact t
