The presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not achieved in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(Sushil Kukreja, J.)

Since all these appeals are the offshoots of impugned judgment dated 14.08.2014, hence the same are taken up together for disposal.

2. The instant appeals have been filed by the appellant/State laying challenge to judgments, dated 14.08.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., whereby the appeal of the accused persons, i.e., Karnail Singh and Anupam were allowed. Vide impugned judgment dated 14.08.2014, accused Karnail Singh was acquitted under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), accused Anupam was also acquitted under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and the appeal preferred by the State against judgment dated 27.08.2011, for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that one Shri Chain Singh (complainant) made a complaint, dated 26.02.2000, to Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, which was investigated by Vigilance Department, Dharamshala and after receipt of the inquiry report, a case FIR was registered against Karnail Singh and Anupam (the accused persons). As per the story of the prosecution, on 12.10.1999 at place Patta Jatain, accused in connivance with co-accused forged application for procuring 10^th standard certificate from H.P. Board of School Education. Accused Karnail Singh personated himself as one Vijay Kumar for procuring a false certificate from the board and in that process co-accused Anupam helped him. During the course of the investigation, police procured receipt, extract of dispatch register and extract of gazette qua the result of matriculation examination for the Session March, 1993. The Investigating Officer took into possession application form and receipt and procured copies of extract of admission and withdrawal register. Matriculation certificate was also taken into possession by the police and copy of pariwar register was also taken into possession. Police recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and after completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court.

4. The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 27.08.2011 convicted both the accused persons and vide order dated 05.09.2011 sentenced them as under:

Accused Karnail Singh:

In default of payment of fine amount, accused Karnail Singh was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Accused Anupam:

In default of payment of fine amount, accused Anupam was also ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

5. In order to prove its case, during trial, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses and after the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they stated that they are were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. However, they did not examine any witness in their defence.

6. Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction, dated 27.08.2011, and order of sentence, dated 05.09.2011, both the accused persons/convicts as well as the State preferred separate appeals before the learned First Appellate Court and vide judgments dated 14.08.2014, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal