The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under sections 420, 468, and 471 of IPC.

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Kumar (Verma), J. - This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 29.12.2017 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Sessions Judge, District- Bhopal (M.P.) in S.T. No.544/2013 whereby, learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable as under :-

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that a private complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent No.2 wherein, it was so alleged that the complainant is the chief editor of a monthly Magzine by the name of 'Vyom Garjana' and in public interest is filing the instant complaint and in the complaint it was alleged that appellant in the year 1997 is said to have appeared in the examination conducted by the M.P. Public Service Commission on the basis of document issued by Tehsildar, Nasrullaganj, District Sehore dated 29.03.1993. It was further alleged that no such documents dated 29.03.1993 in the form of caste certificate was issued by him and on the basis of aforesaid allegation, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal, District Bhopal has taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 420, 467, and 468 of IPC against the present appellant and has committed the same to the Sessions Court Thereafter, appellant was charged for offence punishable under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC and as the case was triable by learned Sessions Judge, therefore, it was committed to the aforesaid Court. The appellant abjured her guilt and took a plea that she has been falsely implicated in the present crime and prays for trial.

3. That, thereafter charges were framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 9 witnesses namely G.S. Rawat (PW-1), Achal Bihari Dubey (PW-2), G.S. Bhalavi (PW-3), J.L. Mishra (PW-4), Sanjay Kherkar (PW-5), Devraj Birdi (PW-6), Salina Singh (PW-7), Sudheer Kumar Jain (PW-8) and Shailendra Hinotiya (PW-9). Thereafter, examination of appellant was done under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The appellant has pleaded her false implication in the matter. In support of her defence, no witness has been produced by the appellant.

4. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record convicted the appellant as mentioned above in Para -1. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and sentence, appellant has preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and sentenced and also from the charges levelled against her.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that learned trial Judge has erred in holding the appellant guilty for offence. punishable under Sections 468, 420 & 471 of I.P.C. The conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 468, 420 & 471 I.P.C. is bad, improper, incorrect and illegal. The prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients u/s 468, 420 & 471 I.P.C, because, there are major contradictions, omissions and improvements in the prosecution evidence and they are inconsistent. The genesis of the entire case is the letter dated 29.03.1993 which now is being claimed as a caste certificate which was never issued by the Tehsildar, K.S. Rai as it was not found in the dispatch register of the office of the said Tehsildar. The said letter dated 29.03.1993 was never issued in the official gazette as a matter of fact it was issued in the personal capacity. It is also submitted that to make a document as forged the present who is said to have issued the same should come to the Court and say that he has not issued the document or that there has to be evidence on record that the document was never