Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J.
Nisar, S/o Meerasahib – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.A.No.481 of 2008
Decided on : 04-06-2020
Indian Penal Code- Sections 365, 395 and 468, 464- In order to term a substance as a document, some matter should have been expressed or described on that substance by means of letter, figures or marks and such matter should be intended to be used as evidence of that matter-Forcing another person to sign on a blank paper will not amount to forgery under Section 463, amounting to an offence punishable under Section 468. In such circumstances, the finding of guilt and conviction of the appellant under Sections 365, 395 and 468 IPC cannot be legally sustained.
Statement of facts:
The appellant, who was the third accused in Crime No.133 of 2001 of Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, challenges his conviction and sentence in S.C.No.599 of 2003 of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-I), Thiruvananthapuram for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 395 and 468 IPC. Out of the 7 indicted accused, the first accused was absconding and the case against him had to be split up. Accused Nos.2 to 7, faced trial and the appellant alone was convicted while the others were acquitted for want of evidence.
Finding of the court:
It is doubtful whether the act of putting a signature on blank paper can be termed as expression or description of any matter intended to be used as evidence of that matter and thereby, bringing it within the meaning of ‘document’ under Section 29 of IPC. In any case, forcing another person to sign on a blank paper will not amount to forgery under Section 463, amounting to an offence punishable under Section 468-The finding of guilt and conviction of the appellant under Sections 365, 395 and 468 IPC cannot be legally sustained.
Result: Criminal appeal is allowed and the appellant acquitted
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The essential elements of forgery under Section 463 include (i) the making of a false document or part of it, and (ii) the intent to cause damage, injury, or to support a claim or support fraud (!) .
A false document is defined under Section 464 as acts such as making, signing, sealing, executing, transmitting, affixing electronic signatures, or causing others to sign or alter documents or electronic records with fraudulent intent, particularly when such acts are done dishonestly or fraudulently (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The act of forcing someone to sign on a blank paper does not constitute making a false document or forgery because it lacks the expression or description of any matter intended to be used as evidence (!) (!) .
To qualify as a document under relevant legal definitions, some matter must be expressed or described on the substance by means of letters, figures, or marks, which is intended to be used as evidence of that matter. Merely signing on a blank paper does not meet this criterion (!) .
The seizure or recovery of signed blank papers from an accused, without a proper basis under specific legal provisions (such as voluntary disclosure), does not constitute admissible evidence of forgery or related offences. Such recoveries, if not made under proper legal procedures, cannot be relied upon to establish guilt (!) (!) (!) .
The charges of abduction, dacoity, and forgery must be supported by clear evidence demonstrating the specific intent and participation of the accused, which was lacking in this case. The evidence did not sufficiently establish that the acts committed by the appellant met the legal criteria for these offences (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The conviction based solely on the recovery of signed blank papers, without additional supporting evidence, is not legally sustainable. Consequently, the appellant's guilt under the relevant sections cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is acquitted. The bail bond executed by the appellant is canceled, signifying the conclusion of the legal proceedings in favor of the appellant (!) .
Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance.
JUDGMENT :
The appellant, who was the third accused in Crime No.133 of 2001 of Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, challenges his conviction and sentence in S.C.No.599 of 2003 of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-I), Thiruvananthapuram for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 395 and 468 IPC. Out of the 7 indicted accused, the first accused was absconding and the case against him had to be split up. Accused Nos.2 to 7, faced trial and the appellant alone was convicted while the others were acquitted for want of evidence.
2. The prosecution allegations, upon which the accused were charged and the appellant convicted are as under:-
3. In order to prove the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13 documents and MO1 to MO5, material objects marked in evidence.
4. The trial court, after appreciation of evidence, acquitted accused Nos.2 and 4 to 7 for want of evidence regarding their participation in the crime and convicted the appellant under Sections 365, 395 and 468 IPC. The other accused were acquitted since PW2; the victim failed to identify any of the accused in the dock, including the appellant. But, as far as the appellant is concerned, the trial court found that his guilt stood proved by the recovery of signed stamp and blank papers under Ext.P6 Mahazar.
5. Heard Sri.R.T.Pradeep, learned counsel for the appellant and Senior Public Prosecutor Sri.B.Jayasurya for the State.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the reliance placed by the trial court on the alleged recovery of the stamp papers from the appellant, the only piece of evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. It is submitted that the prosecution case of the appellant having voluntarily produced the stamp papers after his arrest by PW11 and the seizure of MO1 series and MO2 under Ext.P6 is legally
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
