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.

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 of Corruption Act, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each offence. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for each offence.

2. According to the prosecution (CBI), during the relevant period the appellant dishonestly fabricated documents relating to three LIC policies bearing Nos. 380912503, 380910103 and 380503062 in the names of Ku. Anju Pandit, Jagdish Prasad Tiwari and Ku. Vibha Jagum. It is alleged that he forged policy papers, transfer records and signatures, falsely showing the policies as transferred to the Bilaspur Branch, with intent to obtain LIC loans amounting to Rs.1,85,096/-. Although the loans were sanctioned by the Branch Manager, the amounts were never disbursed. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and the learned Trial Court thereafter framed charges against him accordingly to which, appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

3. To establish its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and claimed innocence as well as false implication. He did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

4. The learned trial Court, upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as detailed in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has gravely erred in law and on facts in holding the appellant guilty. The appellant, being merely an Assistant Clerk, had no authority or capacity to sanction or secure LIC loans and has been falsely implicated as a scapegoat to shield the real offenders. The findings of conviction are against the weight of evidence and rest on conjectures and surmises, with no proof of mens rea. Material facts were ignored, including the lack of authority of the Branch Manager to sanction loans of such amount and the handwriting expert’s opinion, which does not support the prosecution case. The impugned judgment is therefore unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded findings of guilt based on proved acts of fabrication, forgery, and conspiracy. The Trial Court has duly considered all material aspects and no perversity or illegality is shown. The impugned judgment is reasoned, lawful and calls for no interference.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material