The appellate court cannot interfere with a trial court's acquittal unless substantial errors or injustice are evident, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Petitioner / State against the impugned judgment of dated 05.10.1999, whereby the respondents herein have been acquitted from the charges punishable under S.419, S.420, S.467 and S.471 of the IPC by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh (M.P.) (Now Chhattisgarh), in Criminal Case No. 124/1993.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.08.1991, respondent Vimla Bai from Village Sendri obtained loan of Rs. 6,000 / from Seva Sahkari Samiti, Dongargarh Branch under the I.R.D.B. Plan for the purpose of purchasing Bullock cart with oxen impersonating herself as Name Bai belonging to the Tribal community. Respondent Ramdas is husband of respondent Vimla Bai and it is found that he along with other respondents forged the documents in the name of Namebai. Thereafter, Harishchandra, Vice - Chairman of Seva Sahkari Samiti, Thakurtola (PW1) made a written complaint to the Thana Inspector, Bortalab regarding the same. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and charges were framed under S.420 and S.471 of IPC against the respondent Ramdas, under S.419 and S.420 of IPC against the respondent Vimla Bai and under S.467 and S.471 of IPC against the other respondents / accused.

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents / accused, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of the respondents herein were also recorded under S.313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied guilt.

4. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges against which the appeal has been preferred.

5. Mr. Lalit Jangde, learned State counsel would submit that the judgment passed by the Court below is erroneous, illegal and bad in law as the trial Court failed to see that the said loan was got sanctioned in the name of Namebai and a witness Kotwar (PW4) has specifically stated that the photograph posted on the application was not of Nembai. Learned Court below further failed to see that the report of handwriting expert is a public document and the court has ample power to summon a witness but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact. As the Court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record in its true perspective, the finding and conclusions drawn by the Court below are liable to be dismissed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there is no documentary evidence available on record which can prove the guilt of respondents. As such, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance in the matter of Murlidhar alias Gidda and Another v. State of Karnataka passed in 2014 (5) SCC 730 : (AIR 2014 SC 2200).

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. The previous order sheets of this case show that during the pendency of this appeal, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 namely Heeralal and Limbaji respectively, are died. So, this appeal in respect of both the respondents is abated.

9. Before the trial Court, complainant Harishchandra (PW1) admitted his signature on FIR and as well as on written complaint. He stated that he was suffering from ill - health last year due to which he has the problem of oblivion, therefore, he was unable to narrate the matter in detail, he did not state anything against the respondents. Ramlal (PW2) stated in para 4