Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY
Arun Vasant Bapat, S/o Vasant Vinayak – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Though C.B.I. Anti Corruption Br. Jabalpur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on fabricated documents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defense claims false implication due to lack of authority. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. prosecution's evidence correctly appreciated by trial court. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. trial court findings supported by witnesses' testimonies. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. witnesses denied involvement or knowledge. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. insufficient evidence connecting appellant to forgery. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. allegations of conspiracy not sufficiently proven. (Para 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. suspicion cannot replace proof; appeal allowed. (Para 26 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajani Dubey, J.
1. The present appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.04.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (Central Bureau of Investigation), Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Special Criminal Case No. 21/2004. By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 511 and Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention
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.
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.
Public servants convicted of misappropriation and forgery through forged loan applications must be proven to have made false documents and abused their positions, affirming the importance of direct e....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.
The prosecution could not establish the case against the appellant under Section 120(B)/468 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) & Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19....
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
