The court ruled that acquittals in conspiracy cases must be based on a holistic appreciation of evidence, rejecting selective readings that undermine victims' rights and public justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by CBI challenging the acquittal judgment passed in C.C.No.13 of 2010 on the file of learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai.

2. Brief facts of the case:

A1 to A6 and approver P.W.3 in C.C.No. 13 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai entered into conspiracy to cheat the unemployed youth on the false promise of arranging employment in the railway protection force (RPF) by preparing forged application for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, police constable in RPF and forged index card, RPF selection card, RPF Chennai permission pass, RPF call letter for written examination, RPF identity slip cum free travel authority, RPF selection list on different occasions and appointment orders and allotment of duty and demanded, accepted various amounts from various witnesses and made repayment of part of the amount to some of the witnesses and gave the forged appointment order to P.W.2 and P.W.4. P.W.2 and P.W.4 approached P.W.5 Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Post, Madurai on the basis of the forged appointment order and duty allotment order on 14.06.2009 and requested to allow them to join. Eventually P.W.5 came to know that the same was forged one and on suspicion, he contacted A6 and A6 asked to release him and thereafter P.W. 5 and the department came to know about the forged appointment order and received the complaint from P.W.2 and P.W.4, and after consulting the higher officers P.W.1 gave complaint to the CBI under Ex.P6. The CBI registered the case under sections 120 (b), r/w. 420 of I.P.C., 468, 471, 473 of IPC and 13 (2), 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

2.1. Thereafter, CBI conducted investigation and filed the final report against A1 to A6 and P.W.3 turned approver. The said final report was taken on file by the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai in C.C.No. 13 of 2010 and summons was issued to the accused. After appearance of the accused, the copies under section 207 of Cr.P.C., were served upon them. Proper charges were framed and the accused were questioned and all the accused pleaded not guilty and they stood for trial. The prosecution to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.41 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P77 and marked M.O.1 to M.O.9. The learned trial judge questioned the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the prosecution documents. All the accused denied them as false and they gave explanation that they were falsely roped in this case. A1 took a specific stand that he was one of the victims at the hands of A4 and he was arrayed as accused without any legal evidence and A3 stated that false case was foisted against him. Similarly remaining accused also took a stand that they were falsely arrayed as accused.

2.2. On the side of the defense, D.W.1, D.W.2 were examined and Ex.D1 was marked. The learned trial judge after considering both prosecution and defense evidence acquitted all the accused by impugned judgment dated 19.04.2017. Challenging the same the CBI has filed this appeal.

3. The learned public prosecutor made the following detailed submissions :-

Thiru. Muthusaravanan, the learned public prosecutor for CBI would read the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses and relevant portion of the material documents and also argued about the legal principles governing the approver evidence, conspiracy and the appreciation of the evidence in this type of the case of job racktering and also the legal infirmity and factually erroneous finding of the lea