The court emphasized the importance of positive evidence, absence of unexplained delays in lodging complaints, and consistency in witness testimonies in reaching a decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in C.C.No.384 of 2009 dated 09.01.2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.4 of 2017 dated 12.07.2019.)

1. The convicted A1 is the Revision Petitioner herein.

2. The respondent-Police filed a final report in Crime No.400 of 2007, Katpadi Police Station, Vellore District and the same was taken as C.C.No.384 of 2009.

3. After trial, A2-Murugesan was acquitted and the first accused Sankar, S/o.Late Subramani Naicker was convicted by the trial Court. The first accused- Sankar is claimed as Murugesan, while the second accused is claimed as Velmurugan. On appeal filed by the first accused, Crl.A.No.4 of 2017 was dismissed.

4. The 1st appellant/1st accused had been convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year for each offence and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for each offence, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months, for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 419 C.P.C and it is further ordered that the above sentences shall run concurrently and the detention period of 10 days from 15.09.2009 to 24.09.2009 shall be set off. 2nd accused was found not guilty for the offences under Sections 420 r/w 120 (b), 469 and 471 of I.P.C and he was acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C (Fine amount was paid).

5. The case of the prosecution is that the accused 1 & 2 were brothers and sons of Late.Subramani Naicker. The complainant S.Veerasamy is the elder brother of the accused 1 & 2. The accused and the complainant were having prior enmity in sharing of properties of their father. In order to get a job, the accused 1 & 2 entered into criminal conspiracy of cheating by impersonation as the officers of the Revenue Department and they presented the forged school certificate and used it as a genuine certificate for the purpose of cheating the Government to get a job, thereby, the 1st accused submitted a forged school certificate which stands in the name of 2nd accused, to the Revenue Official and the illegally joined as "Village Menial" (Village Sippanthi) in the office of the Village Administrative Officer at Old Katpadi. On receipt of complaint from the complainant S.Veerasamy, after investigation, the Inspector of Police, Katpadi Police Station filed charge sheet as against the accused 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 r/w 120 (B) I.P.C.

6. After observing the formalities, the trial has commenced. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P17 were marked.

7. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has rendered a judgment of conviction and the first accused, namely, the revision petitioner was convicted for the alleged offences under Sections 420 r/w 120(b), 469 and 471 I.P.C. However, the trial Court had chosen to acquit the 2nd accused on the ground that there is no positive evidence to show that the second accused had a criminal intention and also criminal conspiracy and his name could not be identified with that of the Murugesan and hence the convicted appellant has preferred the appeal.

8. Before the appellate Court, P.W.1/defacto-complainant who is the elder brother of the both accused persons tendered evidence which was taken into consideration.

9. Charge as against the appellant/1st accused was that the de-facto - complainant is the elder brother of both accused persons. The appellant/1st accused was the last son of the couple Subramani and Saradha Ammal. The appellant/1st accused was originally born in 1971 and his name is Sankar. But, the appellant/1st accused, for the purpose of obtaining job, has given false school certificate as if his name Murugesan and his year of birth was 1964. So, the Trial Court has framed charged offences under Sections 419, 420 r/w 120(B)(1), 468 and 471 of I.P.C. After conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted him under