The appellate court may remand a case for retrial if the trial court fails to consider vital evidence, ensuring justice is served.

Order :

(Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.)

1. Both the criminal Revisions arise out of the same incident therefore, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The applicants filed instant Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC assailing the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon passed on 21.07.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2022 whereby the learned Sessions Court has set- aside the judgment dated 31.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Dongargarh by which the accused have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 120B, 420,4 67, 468 and 471 of the IPC and remanded back the matter to learned trial Court to consider the documentary evidence already on record and, if necessary, he may call the witnesses for examination.

3. Prosecution case, in brief is that on 04.02.2011 complainant Tulsi Mishra made a written complaint before Sub Divisional Officer alleging that Surendra Kumar who belonged to Kanwar (Adiwasi) has changed his caste to sell out the agricultural lands from Tribal to Non-tribal. It is alleged that the applicants in collusion with the then Patwari hatched criminal conspiracy, manipulated the caste of seller in the revenue record showing it as the lands belonged to non-tribal to earn illegal profit. It is alleged that the Patwari after manipulating in the record has provided copy of khasra No. 168, area 1.7, 0.555 hectares rin pustika No. P-2190170. On the complaint of complainant, Sub Divisional Officer has conducted an enquiry and directed Tahsildar Dongargarh to register FIR against the accused which was registered as Crime No. 167/12 by the Police Station Dongargarh. The prosecution during investigation, Tahsildar, Dongargarh recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized the documents, thereafter, registered the Crime No. 940/2012 under Sections 420,467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of the IPC and filed the challan before the Court.

4. The prosecution to prove its case has examined the witnesses Indra Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Prafull Gupta (PW-2), Gangadhar Deshmukh (PW-3), Dudeshwar Bichhode (PW-4), Omkar Sahu (PW- 5), Ashok Kumar (PW-6), Rajkishore Narware (PW-7), Brijesh Singh (PW-8), Tilakchand (PW-9), Surendra Kanwar (PW-10), Rajkumar Netam (PW-11), Tulsi Mishra (PW- 12), Mukesh Sahu (PW-13), Sundarlal Dhritlahare (PW-14), Bisen Kanwar (PW-15), Bismat (PW- 16), Jaiprakash Maurya (PW-17). The accused persons have not examined any witness but they were examined under Section 313 CrPC and exhibited memo dated 16.04.2012 (Ex.D-1), memo dated 17.04.2012 (Ex.D-2), notice dated 29.03.2012 (Ex.D-3), reply dated 30.03.2012 (Ex.D-4).

5. Learned trial court after considering the evidence, material on record has acquitted the applicants of the charge under Sections 120-B, 420,467,468,471 of the IPC. The learned trial Court while acquitting the accused has recorded its finding that the seizure witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, as he has refused to seizure made by the Police. The trial court has also considered the evidence of (PW-17) Jaiprakash Maurya and has recorded its finding that information regarding manipulation in the document has been informed by Manakchand Jain Patwari, but he has admitted that he has not conducted enquiry regarding fabrication in the document. He has also recorded its finding that in the report Ex.P-23, he has mentioned about an agreement but neither agreement has been annexed nor he has seen the agreement and only on the statement of Surendra Kumar he has mentioned about the agreement. Lastly, he has recorded its finding that the witnesses have admitted that in Ex.P-23 there is no document which can establish the manipulation in the document when the document was in possession of the accused Jagdeo Prasad Kunte. Learned Trial Court has also considered the evidence of Tulsi Mishra (PW-1) who was the complainant and has taken into consideration the statement that he has denied t