The prosecution must prove the authenticity of documents and testimony to sustain convictions related to forgery; failure to do so results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the judgment dated 24.09.2025 in S.C. No.154 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 419 , 420, 465 and 468 r/w 471 of the IPC and sentenced as follows:

2. (i) The case of the prosecution is that the first accused brought the appellant/A2 and two minor victims, who were aged 17 years from Myanmar; that two victims were brought by using forged passports; that the first victim was shown as the wife of the first accused and the second victim was shown as the wife of the appellant; that two forged marriage certificates were produced at the immigration; that the first accused brought those girls with intent to indulge them in prostitution; that the appellant was brought to secure a job for him in Malaysia and hence, the first accused committed the offences under Sections 370 (ii),(iii),(iv), 419, 420, 465 and 468 r/w 471 of the IPC and the appellant committed the offences under Sections 419 , 465 and 468 r/w 471 of the .

(ii) On the complaint [Ex.P1] given by the Immigration Officer [PW1], an FIR [Ex.P36] was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police [PW13]. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police [PW14] took up the investigation and after examining the witnesses filed the final report against the accused for the offences under Sections 419 , 420, 465, 468, 471, 370(2), 370(3) and 370(4) of the IPC , before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alandur, which was taken on file as PRC No.27 of 2022.

(iii) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, committed to the Court of Sessions i.e., Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu and was made over to the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, for trial, which was taken on file as S.C.No.154 of 2022. The trial Court had framed charges under Sections 370 (ii),(iii),(iv), 419, 420, 465 and 468 r/w 471 of the IPC against the first accused and under Sections 419 , 465 and 468 r/w 471 of the against the appellant/A2 and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(iv) Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and marked 44 exhibits as Ex.P1 to Ex.P44, besides four material objects, i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.4. When the accused were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on their side.

(v) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the first accused for the offence under Sections 370 (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the IPC and found both the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 419 , 420, 465 and 468 r/w 471 of the and convicted both the accused. The appellant/A2 was sentenced as stated in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused/A2 had preferred the instant appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that admittedly the appellant had no connection with the first accused; that he was introduced to first accused by an agent in Bangladesh; that the only allegation against the appellant is that he had produced a marriage certificate [Ex.P7] which was forged; that the prosecution had not established that the said marriage certificate is forged as the investigating officer had admitted in his cross examination that the marriage certificate [Nikkanama] was sent to Bangaladesh and the respondent had not received any information from the Bangaladesh authorities as regards the genuineness of the said certifi