Forgery and conspiracy can be established through circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of forensic analysis, provided the overall evidence speaks to the guilt of the accused.

ORDER

The revision petitioners who are the accused in C.C.No.

720/96 in the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam stand convicted for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 471 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each for the offence under Section 420 IPC, simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 471 IPC and simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 120B IPC. It is also directed that the sentences shall run consecutively. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence.

2. The prosecution case is that A1, elder brother of deceased Ahamed Bava entered into a criminal conspiracy with the 2nd accused who is an L.I.C.agent and by forging the proposal form etc. obtained an L.I.C.policy from the Thalassery branch of the L.I.C.in the name of the deceased Ahamed Bava who was sick CRRP.NOS.3093,3094/2003 & 104/2004 -2-

and ailing suppressing the health conditions and the actual age of Ahamed Bava and attempted to obtain the L.I.C amount by preferring a death claim. It is the case that the signatures in the proposal form etc.were forged and the name of A1 was mentioned as nominee and on death of Ahamed Bava the claim was preferred.

3. The evidence adduced at the instance of the prosecution consisted of the testimony of Pws.1 to 16 and Exts.P1 to P28. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the incriminating portions of prosecution evidence were put to them, both of them had denied the prosecution allegations and reiterated their innocence. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that the evidence adduced at the instance of the prosecution is too vague and scratchy and the reasoning of the courts below is perverse. The revision petitioners have been convicted on the basis of probability which is contrary to the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence. It is further stressed that the alleged forgery stands not established as the signature has not been subjected to scientific examination of the handwriting expert. It is further pointed out that A1 is made the nominee in the policy is CRRP.NOS.3093,3094/2003 & 104/2004 -3-

not of much significance as the nominee is not having any legal right to appropriate the amount due towards the policy and that he can only collect the same. It is further pointed out that the reliance placed on the evidence of PW6 is totally unwarranted as he is an aged person and undergone,admittedly, cataract surgery. The evidence of the Doctor who allegedly treated the deceased is only oral evidence and the same ought not to have been relied to enter upon a conviction. It is also pointed out that no attempt has been made out by the investigating agency to ascertain the actual age of the deceased Ahamed Bava.

4. On a perusal of the evidence adduced in the matter, I find that the findings arrived at by the courts below as to the guilt of the accused do not call for any interference. The admitted signatures of deceased Ahamed Bava as contained in the earlier policy taken by him in the year 1980 vide Ext.P3 file and the signatures of the deceased in Ext.P8 the current account opening form of the Vijaya Bank, Ext.P8(a), the partner's liability letter issued to the Bank and Ext.P9, the current account opening form at South Indian bank and in Ext.P4, the dissolution of partnership deed dated 30-4-1992 and Ext.P20 partnership CRRP.NOS.3093,3094/2003 & 104/2004 -4-

deed dated 11-3-1980 are totally dissimilar with the signatures of the deceased contained in Ext.P2 file, in Ext.P2(a),the proposal form, allegedly issued by the deceased at the time when the impugned policy was taken in November 1991. Just a look at the two sets of signatures would show that the same are entirely at variance. The signatures contained in Ext.P3 file and in the account opening form etc. are in Kannada and it appears that the full name is written as the signature. The signatures in the impugned Ext.P2 (a) proposal form and Ext.P2 letter are ju