IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish all elements of the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof never shifts to the accused. In the absence of credible evidence linking the accused to the commission of the offences, a conviction cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT :

(Mohd. Akram Chowdhary, J.) :

1. Appellant No. 2 Mohd. Adrees S/o Said Mohd. R/o Panjani Tehsil Mendhar District Poonch, who was alleged to have been selected for his recruitment in J&K Police in an on spot recruitment, had produced two School Leaving Certificates issued by Headmaster Govt. High School Burhutti Mendhar for 8th Class pass and reading in 10th Class on 16.09.1998 to Mr. Manohar Lal Mehra, Dy. SP Poonch and one of the certificates issued at Sl. No. 32 seemed to him to have been made fictitious by tampering with ink, as such, he forwarded the same to SHO P/S Mendhar to verify the authenticity of the certificate from the concerned authority and furnish a factual report to his office urgently.

2. SHO P/S Mendhar, on receipt of the communication from Dy. SP Poonch, requisitioned the record from Government High School, Burhutti, which was produced to him by appellant no. 1 Mustan Shah Teacher, Incharge Admission/Records. From the scrutiny of the record, tampering was found pertaining to the actual date of birth of appellant no. 2 Mohd. Andrees i.e. May 2, 1981, which calculated less than 18 years of qualifying age for Government employment. The School establishment including the Headmaster, In charge Admission etc. were suspected to have connived with the said Mohd. Andrees to give him undue benefit and changed the year of birth from 1981 to 1980.

3. A case was registered vide FIR No. 173/1998 on 23.09.1998 at P/S Mendhar for commission of offences punishable under sections 466/468/471/420 r/w section 34 RPC and during investigation, on the basis of the record and statement of the witnesses, accused Mustan Shah, Teacher, Incharge Admission/Record was found to have tampered with Entry No.346 of the admission/withdrawal register and Entry No. 142 of the Date of Birth Register, with a criminal intention to issue forged birth certificate in favour of Mohd. Andrees and a charge sheet was laid for the commission of offences punishable under sections 420/466/468/34 RPC against the Appellant No. 1 Mustan Shah and for the commission of offences punishable under sections 420/471/34 RPC against appellant no. 2 Mohd. Andrees.

4. Both the appellants were charge sheeted for the commission of the aforementioned offences by Principal Sessions Judge Poonch (Trial Court) vide order dated 20.07.2000, who pleading innocence, denied the charge and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case to bring home the charge against the accused appellants examined Manohar Lal Mehra, Mohd. Hafiz, Subash Chander, Shabir Hussain, Mohd. Suleman, Abdul Rehman, and Mohd. Sharief Chouhan as prosecution witnesses. After examination in terms of Section 342 Cr.P.C., the accused examined Nazir Hussain as a defense witness. The trial court vide impugned judgment dated 29.10.2012 passed in the case titled State v. Mustan Shah & Anr. recorded the conviction of appellant/accused Mustan Shah for the commission of offences punishable under sections 466/468/471 and 34 RPC whereas appellant/accused Mohd. Andrees for the commission of offences punishable under sections 468/471/420 and 34 RPC and vide order dated 29.10.2012 sentenced them to imprisonment as well as fine.

6. Aggrieved of the aforesaid impugned judgment/order, the appellants have filed this appeal assailing the same, on the following grounds:

"a. That the judgment annexure A as also the order of sentence annexure-B to this appeal are a result of mis appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence and mis-application of law. On this ground alone the judgment annexure A and order of sentence annexure-B are liable to be set aside;

b. That the trial court has completely mis-understood the very substratum of the prosecution story as was reflected in the charge, which had been framed against the appellants. The charge against the appellant no.1 was that he had in alliance with appellant no. 2 changed the date of birth as was recorded in the two school leaving certificates, as also had chang