The appellate court must critically scrutinize the evidence and provide a reasoned judgment when arriving at a finding contrary to the trial court.

This appeal against acquittal is directed against judgment and order dated 29.09.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Criminal Appeal No.16(2) of 2012, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.05.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar in case No. C.R. 112 of 1998.

2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. S. Dutta for the appellant, learned counsel, Mr. H. K. Bhowmik for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the respondent No.3.

3. Fact of the case, necessary for disposal of this appeal, may be summarized thus :

The appellant, Sri Mantosh Sinha set the law in motion by filing a written complaint before the Chief Judicial magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar alleging, inter alia, that his maternal uncle (mother’s brother), namely, Late Maniraj Sinha, S/O. Late Mantri Sinha was originally a resident of Patharkandi, Assam and after the death of his parents he shifted to the house of the complainant and after completion of his studies he got a job as a school teacher under the Government of Tripura and was posted at Santipur J. B. School. In the year 1991 he purchased 11 gandas of land by two registered sale deeds in the name of his nephew, Sri Manigo Sinha @ Prabhas Sinha, S/O. Prafulla Sinha and those sale deeds were executed by one Sabitri Datta in the name of Manigo Sinha. Maniraj Sinha died in the year 1995. In the year 1996 accused Anima Sinha, W/O. Late Maniraj Sinha hatched a conspiracy with other accused Sukumar Chowdhury (Malakar) and pursuant to such conspiracy accused-respondent, Anima Sinha, made an application for mutation of that 11 gandas of land purchased in the name of Manigo Sinha, in her name and that was registered as a Mutation Case No.1167 dated 21.12.1995. In that mutation case accused Anima Sinha falsely stated that her husband Late Maniraj Sinha was also known as Manigo Sinha and that Maniraj Sinha and Manigo Sinha were same person and thereby obtained mutation of the land in her name. Pursuant to such conspiracy, the said accused Anima Sinha in the year 1997 executed a sale deed in favour of other accused respondent, Sukumar Chowdhury (Malakar) and sold out that 11 gandas of land to Sukumar Chowdhury (Malakar). Subsequently, accused Anima Sinha and accused Sukumar Chowdhury (Malakar) started living together as husband and wife and they out of a criminal conspiracy with a view to deprive Manigo Sinha @ Prabhas Sinha from the enjoyment of his property created false Khatian in the name of Anima Sinha and subsequently Anima Sinha executed the sale deed in the name of accused Sukumar Chowdhury (Malakar). Manigo Sinha used to reside away from Tripura and, therefore, he appointed the complainant, Mantosh Sinha, as an attorney to look after and to deal with his property in Tripura and Mantosh Sinha having come to know about the criminal act of accused Anima Sinha and Sukumar Chowdhury(Malakar) lodged the criminal complaint alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 120B, 193, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and in due course evidence of the complainant and two other witnesses were recorded before charge and considering the evidence before charge adduced by the complainant, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges under Sections 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC against both the accused-respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In course of trial, PWs 1, 2 and 3, namely, Sri Mantosh Sinha, Sri Nirmal Sinha and Sri Bireswar Sinha respectively were cross-examined and thereafter complainant side also examined six more witnesses, namely, PW4, Sri Surendra Sinha, PW5, Sri Pravash Sinha @ Manigo Sinha, PW6, Sri Rajendra B