The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to do so results in acquittal.

CAV Judgment

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 12.08.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dantewada, District- South Bastar Dantewada, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.10/2003, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:-

(Both sentences are directed to run concurrently)

Prosecution story:-

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.12.1992, appellant, (the then Manager at Regional Rural Bank, Branch- Nelsar, District- Bastar,C.G.) went to the house of Radhabai (PW-09) who resides at Village- Bodli (which is 8 Kms from Nelsar) and after eating chicken, he returned to Nelsar. On that night, the Bank was set to ablaze, the Research Agency were having doubts on the appellant as he was habitual gambler and he must have formed this conspiracy to cover up his financial irregularities/infirmities and to destroy any evidence regarding his fraudulent work during his tenure as a Manager of the said Bank. After getting the oral and documentary evidence by the Research Agency that the appellant had committed financial irregularities and withdrawn the amount fraudulently, it is evident from the Research Agency that the appellant had withdrawn the amounts from the State Bank of India, Geedam on different dates and the said amounts were not deposited by the appellant in Rural Regional Bank. The appellant had also withdrawn amount fraudulently from the saving account holders and withdrawn the amount in the name of Block Development Officer, Bhairamgarh on different dates, whereas the said amounts were not withdrawn on different dates by the said department. The appellant had also falsified the Bank records.The prosecution after conducting the due and necessary investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada, thereafter, the matter was committed to learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar Dantewada and the accused/appellant was put to trial for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 409, 409 , 420 , 420 & 467 of IPC .

3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. In his defence, the appellant examined 02 witnesses.

4. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

Submission of the parties:-

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that conviction of the appellant is bad, illegal and improper, the prosecution has failed to prove necessary ingredients of offence under Section 420 of IPC , the appellant has been convicted under Section 467 of IPC , but there is no evidence available on record that appellant has forged any document. Learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of depositions of B.C. Mazumdar (PW-03) and Moti Singh Chandravanshi (PW-24), but they have nowhere stated that the appellant forged any documents. He further submits that the conviction is erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record, hence is unsustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside. Learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the accused person/appellant has admitted his guilt while replying to Question No. 15 of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. So, the impugned judgment is liable to be set- aside and ap