Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4087
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
DEVNARAYAN MISHRA, J
TEJRAM SIRSE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1789 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Rohit Pegwar
For the Respondents: Shri Himanshu Tiwari
In criminal law, the prosecution carries the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to provide sufficient evidence results in acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 466 and 471 - Conviction for forgery and use of forged documents - The Applicant was convicted and sentenced but argued the absence of strong evidence linking him to the alleged forgery; the handwriting expert failed to confirm his involvement, leading to reasonable doubt about his guilt. (Paras 1, 17, 19)
(B) Burden of Proof - In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The applicant is entitled to benefit of the doubt. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was convicted for forgery based on a disputed mutation order without sufficient evidence connecting him to the crime.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove that the applicant forged the document and the conviction was quashed.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution provided adequate evidence to establish the applicant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that insufficient evidence and reasonable doubt must favor the accused, leading to an acquittal.
Result: The applicant is acquitted from the charges under Sections 466 and 471 of IPC.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of conviction details and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding evidence and accusations. (Para 4) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA th ON THE 9 OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1789 of 2012 TEJRAM SIRSE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:
Shri Rohit Pegwar - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
ORDER This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.08.2012 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, District-Chhindwara (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.135/2008 whereby the applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 466 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and Section 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial Court and Appellate Court had wrongly convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 466 and 471 of IPC whereas in the report of the handwriting expert A. C. Namdeo (PW-12), it has not been opined that the document was prepared and signed by this applicant. He has further submitted that the complaint was not made by private person regarding Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU whose land the mutation order was passed. The Patwari Rajkumar Jaiswal (PW-7), in his statement, has clearly stated that the report was called from him and after the order, he has submitted record of Bhu Adhikar & Rin Pustika (Ex.P-6) before the Tehsildar and in page no.12 of the record of Bhu Adhikar & Rin Pustika, it bear the sign of Tehsildar C.L. Chanab (PW-8). The dispute was raised by Pramila Raut who was at that time posted in the copying section and there was a dispute between Pramila Raut and this applicant. The prosecution has failed to prove that the document was forged by this applicant and he has been made an accused only on the basis that he was the reader of that Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that when the case after the disposal was sent to record room, the matter was listed before Tehsildar C.L. Chanab (PW-8) and in the document (Ex.P-2) at that time, also Tehsildar C.L. Chanab (PW-8) has not made any FIR. At the time of investigation, the document was recovered from the possession of Smt. Farida Shiekh, Steno of SDM (PW-1) and not from the custody of this applicant. When it was found that the forged order was attached with the record, it was also not in the custody of the applicant. Hence, the applicant could not have been convicted for the offence but the trial Court and Appellate Court had not considered this aspect and convicted the applicant for forging the document and using the forged document as a genuine.
4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that as per the departmental enquiry conducted by the Collector, it was found that the document was forged by this applicant. After that, the FIR was lodged. He Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU has also submitted that the trial Court and Appellate Court has rightly convicted the applicant. No case for interference is made out. Hence, this Criminal Revision be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. On this point, Tehsildar C.L. Chanab (PW-8) has stated that from
1994 to 1999, he was posted as a Naib Tehsildar in Tehsil Saunsar, District Chhindwara and on 17.11.1997, on account of transfer of Tehsildar, he was performing his duties as In-charge Tehsildar and the applicant-Tejram Sirse was working as a reader to Tehsildar Court. After a period of 6-7 months of 17.11.1997, clerk Pramila Raut from copying section had submitted an order dated 17.11.1997 before C.L. Chanab (PW-8) and o
