Full Judgment Text
1 cri appeal 289.98
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 289 OF 1998
The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
1. Dwarkabai W/o Keshav Rathod,
Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Satona.
2. Keshav S/o Lalu Rathod,
Age : 57 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Satona.
3. Rama S/o Lalu Rathod,
Age : 43 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Satona.
4. Sahebrao S/o Yadavrao Akat,
Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Satona.
5. Laxman S/o Deorao Ghumare,
Age : 43 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o TidiPimpalgaon, Tq. Pathri. .. Respondents
(Orig. Appellant/accused)
Shri V. D. Rakh, A.P.P. for the Appellant/State.
Shri Ajay T. Kanwade, Advocate h/f Shri S. B. Talekar, Advocate
for Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
2 cri appeal 289.98
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J.
DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2011.
JUDGMENT :
. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order
dated 11.03.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No. 17/1991, thereby quashing
order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate in R.C.C.
No. 33/1989 dated 01.02.1991.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :
The complainant is Murlidhar S/o Mohanlal Randad R/o
Nandgaon, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. He is agriculturist by
occupation. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 are resident of village
Satona and accused No. 5 is resident of village TidiPimpalgaon,
Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani. The accused No. 1 to 5 are
agriculturists by occupation. Accused No. 1 is the wife of accused
No. 2. Accused No. 2 and 3 are real brothers.
3. It is the prosecution case that, complainant Murlidhar is
adopted son of one Rambhabai Mohanlal Randad. Rambhabai
was the owner of field Gat No. 48 situated at village Aher
Borgaon. She had faith on God Maroti. Hence, she gifted field
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
3 cri appeal 289.98
Gat No. 48 to the temple of Got Maroti and handed over the
possession of field Gat No. 48 to the panch committee for the use
of temple of God Maroti in the year 1961 and since the year 1961,
panch committee was in the possession of Gat No. 48.
4. After the death of Rambhabai, complainant became the
owner of the said field. On 12.11.1986 Murlidhar executed
registered giftdeed in favour of panch committee. Behind the
back of Murlidhar, Rama Lalu Rathod (accused No. 3), Keshav
Lalu Rathod (accused No. 2) and Dwarkabai Keshav Rathod
(accused No. 1) on 22.10.1986 by act of impersonation obtained
the signature of complainant from such other person and got
executed sale deed purported to have been executed by the
complainant. Murlidhar came to know about this fact on
12.11.1986 about execution of sale deeds. Such sale deeds were
forged one. Such sale deeds were forged with intent to cause loss
to the complainant and panch committee and for the benefit of
aforesaid three accused.
5. It is the prosecution case that, sale deeds referred above do
not bear the signature of complainant or his thumbimpression.
Due to the forged sale deeds, it had caused damage to the
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
4 cri appeal 289.98
complainant and panch committee. On the strength of forged
sale deeds, aforesaid accused were making the efforts to
dispossess the panch committee in whose possession aforesaid
lands were given. The accused Nos. 4 and 5 attested such forged
sale deeds.
6. The present complaint was filed by Murlidhar on
23.11.1986 at Police Station, Sailu, on the basis of which crime
was registered against the accused for the offence punishable
U/Sec. 418, 420, 467 and 468 r/w Sec. 34 of the I. P. Code.
Accused were arrested on 01.10.1987. Investigation was carried
out. During the investigation, statement of witnesses were
recorded. After due investigation, accused were charge sheeted.
7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani after
considering the evidence and hearing the parties acquitted the
accused/respondents herein. Hence this appeal is filed by the
State of Maharashtra challenging the order of acquittal.
The learned A.P.P. appearing for the appellant/State
submitted that, the order passed by the Trial Court was in
consonance with the evidence brought on record. The property is
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
5 cri appeal 289.98
in possession of the panch committee. The said property was
handed over to the panch committee and is in possession of the
panch committee since long. Even during life time of Rambhabai
the said property was in possession of the panch committee. It is
further submitted that, the complainant himself renounces his
signature on the sale deed and, therefore, there remains a little
doubt to suspect the prosecution case. It is further submitted
that, the Trial Court has given reasons for not forwarding the
documents for examination of hand writing expert. Therefore,
the learned A.P.P. would submit that, the impugned judgment
and order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the judgment
and order passed by the learned Trial Court may be confirmed.
The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that,
the complainant in his complaint has stated that, the
respondents i. e. original accused substituted another person for
Murlidhar Mohanlal Randad for getting executed the sale deed
and for signing for Murlidhar. However, the complainant
Murlidhar has not stated this fact in his evidence. It is further
submitted that, the persons who committed forgery should have
been brought before the Court. The prosecution has not brought
on record who has actually forged the signature of Murlidhar.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
6 cri appeal 289.98
Murlidhar in the examination in chief at Exhibit 48 stated that,
sale deed on which the prosecution relies does not bear his
signature or thumb impression. Merely, because the complainant
has stated so cannot form the basis for conviction, in absence of
any other evidence brought on record by the prosecution about
said contention of the complainant. The prosecution has failed to
prove that, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 executed documents in their
favour nor proved that accused/appellant No. 4 and 5 have put
their signature as attesting witnesses. The Sub Registrar was
not examined to prove that accused or any other person has
executed the alleged sale deed and signed the sale deed in
presence of Sub Registrar. The legal presumption is that official
acts have been duly performed and registration of the document
was properly done unless contrary is proved. The alleged act of
forgery had come to the knowledge of complainant on 12.11.1986,
however the complaint is registered on 23.11.1986. There is delay
of 11 days in filing the complaint. The same has not been
properly explained. Therefore, according to the counsel for the
respondent, on this ground alone the complaint should have been
rejected. It is further submitted that, the crime was registered
on 23.11.1986 and respondents were arrested on 01.10.1987.
There was inordinate delay in effecting arrest of the accused
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
7 cri appeal 289.98
person. It is further submitted that, P.W. 3/complainant in his
deposition before the Court has stated, "I had filed private
complaint against the same accused. It was dismissed."
Therefore, the counsel would submit that, the present appeal is
devoid of any merits and same may be dismissed.
08. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on
exposition of the Supreme Court in case of
Kishan Singh
(Dead) through L.R.s Vs. Gurpal Singh and others reported
in and submitted that standard of proof
(2010) 8 S. C. C. 775
required in the Civil and Criminal cases is entirely different.
The civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities of evidence, while in the criminal cases the entire
burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, the counsel for the respondents
would submit that, in the instance case the prosecution has
failed to bring on record cogent and convincing evidence to
convict the accused/respondents for the alleged offence against
them. He further placed reliance in case of
Shahi Kumar
Banerjee Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee reported in AIR 1964
and more particularly para 22 and 23 of the cited
SC 529
judgment and submitted that, the evidence of the expert is not
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
8 cri appeal 289.98
substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is usual
to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by
circumstantial evidence. It is further submitted that, mere
opinion of the expert cannot override the positive evidence of the
attesting witnesses. The learned counsel further placed reliance
on the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in case of
reported in
Ishwari Prasad Misra V. Mohd. Isa (1963) 3 SCR
722 and in particular para 26 of the said judgment which
concludes that, the evidence given by expert of handwriting can
never be conclusive, because it is, after all, opinion evidence.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that, the judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court of
acquittal needs no interference. A possible view has been taken
by the lower Appellate Court.
09. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the
learned A.P.P. for the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondents and also perused the impugned judgment and order
and the record and proceedings. The respondents herein were
convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Selu for the
offences punishable U/Sec. 420, 467, 468 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and they were sentences. The accused No. 1 was
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
9 cri appeal 289.98
sentenced till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/ in
default to under go S. I. for two months on all counts. Remaining
accused were sentenced to under go S. I. for six months each and
to pay fine of Rs. 3000/ each in default to under go S. I. for three
months, on all counts.
On careful perusal of evidence brought on record and the
judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, it clearly emerges
that prosecution has not brought any convincing, cogent and
sufficient evidence to convict the respondents for the offences
punishable U/Sec. 420, 467 and 468 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. It appears that, the Trial Court placed heavy
reliance only on the evidence of complainant and without sending
the documents to hand writing expert or without having any
other evidence on record collected by the prosecution convicted
the respondents. It is the case of prosecution that the
complainant never signed the alleged sale deeds and his
signature was forged by some other person. It was incumbent
upon the prosecution machinery to find out who has forged the
signature of the complainant. The prosecution case is that, the
complainant never went to the Sub Registrar Office. He has
never signed the sale deeds, in that case the prosecution should
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
10 cri appeal 289.98
have made serious attempts to find out who was the person
substituted in place of Murlidhar. As many as five accused
persons were facing trial and therefore, it was duty of the
prosecution to find out the roll of each accused in commission of
crime. Whether respondents have made forged signature of the
complainant or there was any other person who forged the
signature of the complainant has not been convincingly brought
on record by the prosecution. When the prosecution case is that
in furtherance of common intention of the accused, they
knowingly substituted another person for Murlidhar Randad, the
owner of gat No. 48 for getting executed the sale deed in the
name of Murlidhar Randad in order to get some property
transfered, in that case the prosecution was bound to bring on
record cogent, sufficient and clinching evidence to find out the
involvement of the accused in commission of crime. On perusal
of the entire evidence brought on record, it does not appear that
there was even attempt on behalf of the prosecution to collect the
evidence.
As rightly concluded by the lower Appellate Court, it was
necessary to send the signature for verification of the hand
writing expert so as to ascertain whether said signature is forged
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
11 cri appeal 289.98
signature or the complainant himself has signed the said sale
deed. Merely, relying on the statement of the complainant,
conviction cannot be sustained. Therefore, the conclusion drawn
by the lower Appellate Court that, the prosecution has failed to
prove that, the accused singly or jointly forged the signature of
Murlidhar needs to be confirmed. The lower Appellate Court is
also correct in reaching to the conclusion that the examination of
Sub Registrar would have been certainly revealed as to who had
presented the document for registration. There is legal
presumption that, official acts have been duly performed and
registration of the document is properly done unless, contrary
was proved by the prosecution. There was also delay in filing
the complaint. The lower Appellate Court has taken into
consideration infirmities in the prosecution case and ultimately
acquitted the respondents.
11. Though the learned A.P.P. submitted that, in Civil case the
signature of the complainant was sent to the hand writing expert
and it has come on record that, said signature was forged.
However, in the criminal case such exercise is not done as stated
earlier. The standard of proof which is required in civil cases is
different than in the criminal cases, unless the prosecution
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
12 cri appeal 289.98
proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, the person cannot be
convicted. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that, the Civil
Court has decided the civil proceedings in favour of the panch
committee. This Court has not expressed any opinion about said
proceedings. The Civil Court is competent to decide the civil
proceeding and if the Civil Court has decided the proceedings in
favour of panch committee or complainant as the case may be,
the upholding acquittal order of the lower Appellate Court by
this Court cannot construed as impediment in the civil
proceedings. Therefore, for the reasons stated herein above, in
my opinion, the impugned judgment and order is in consonance
with the evidence on record, same stands confirmed. The appeal
stands dismissed. Bail bonds stand cancelled.
[ S. S. SHINDE, J.]
bsb/Feb. 11
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 289 OF 1998
The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
1. Dwarkabai W/o Keshav Rathod,
Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Satona.
2. Keshav S/o Lalu Rathod,
Age : 57 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Satona.
3. Rama S/o Lalu Rathod,
Age : 43 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Satona.
4. Sahebrao S/o Yadavrao Akat,
Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Satona.
5. Laxman S/o Deorao Ghumare,
Age : 43 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o TidiPimpalgaon, Tq. Pathri. .. Respondents
(Orig. Appellant/accused)
Shri V. D. Rakh, A.P.P. for the Appellant/State.
Shri Ajay T. Kanwade, Advocate h/f Shri S. B. Talekar, Advocate
for Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
2 cri appeal 289.98
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J.
DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2011.
JUDGMENT :
. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order
dated 11.03.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No. 17/1991, thereby quashing
order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate in R.C.C.
No. 33/1989 dated 01.02.1991.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :
The complainant is Murlidhar S/o Mohanlal Randad R/o
Nandgaon, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. He is agriculturist by
occupation. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 are resident of village
Satona and accused No. 5 is resident of village TidiPimpalgaon,
Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani. The accused No. 1 to 5 are
agriculturists by occupation. Accused No. 1 is the wife of accused
No. 2. Accused No. 2 and 3 are real brothers.
3. It is the prosecution case that, complainant Murlidhar is
adopted son of one Rambhabai Mohanlal Randad. Rambhabai
was the owner of field Gat No. 48 situated at village Aher
Borgaon. She had faith on God Maroti. Hence, she gifted field
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
3 cri appeal 289.98
Gat No. 48 to the temple of Got Maroti and handed over the
possession of field Gat No. 48 to the panch committee for the use
of temple of God Maroti in the year 1961 and since the year 1961,
panch committee was in the possession of Gat No. 48.
4. After the death of Rambhabai, complainant became the
owner of the said field. On 12.11.1986 Murlidhar executed
registered giftdeed in favour of panch committee. Behind the
back of Murlidhar, Rama Lalu Rathod (accused No. 3), Keshav
Lalu Rathod (accused No. 2) and Dwarkabai Keshav Rathod
(accused No. 1) on 22.10.1986 by act of impersonation obtained
the signature of complainant from such other person and got
executed sale deed purported to have been executed by the
complainant. Murlidhar came to know about this fact on
12.11.1986 about execution of sale deeds. Such sale deeds were
forged one. Such sale deeds were forged with intent to cause loss
to the complainant and panch committee and for the benefit of
aforesaid three accused.
5. It is the prosecution case that, sale deeds referred above do
not bear the signature of complainant or his thumbimpression.
Due to the forged sale deeds, it had caused damage to the
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
4 cri appeal 289.98
complainant and panch committee. On the strength of forged
sale deeds, aforesaid accused were making the efforts to
dispossess the panch committee in whose possession aforesaid
lands were given. The accused Nos. 4 and 5 attested such forged
sale deeds.
6. The present complaint was filed by Murlidhar on
23.11.1986 at Police Station, Sailu, on the basis of which crime
was registered against the accused for the offence punishable
U/Sec. 418, 420, 467 and 468 r/w Sec. 34 of the I. P. Code.
Accused were arrested on 01.10.1987. Investigation was carried
out. During the investigation, statement of witnesses were
recorded. After due investigation, accused were charge sheeted.
7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani after
considering the evidence and hearing the parties acquitted the
accused/respondents herein. Hence this appeal is filed by the
State of Maharashtra challenging the order of acquittal.
The learned A.P.P. appearing for the appellant/State
submitted that, the order passed by the Trial Court was in
consonance with the evidence brought on record. The property is
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
5 cri appeal 289.98
in possession of the panch committee. The said property was
handed over to the panch committee and is in possession of the
panch committee since long. Even during life time of Rambhabai
the said property was in possession of the panch committee. It is
further submitted that, the complainant himself renounces his
signature on the sale deed and, therefore, there remains a little
doubt to suspect the prosecution case. It is further submitted
that, the Trial Court has given reasons for not forwarding the
documents for examination of hand writing expert. Therefore,
the learned A.P.P. would submit that, the impugned judgment
and order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the judgment
and order passed by the learned Trial Court may be confirmed.
The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that,
the complainant in his complaint has stated that, the
respondents i. e. original accused substituted another person for
Murlidhar Mohanlal Randad for getting executed the sale deed
and for signing for Murlidhar. However, the complainant
Murlidhar has not stated this fact in his evidence. It is further
submitted that, the persons who committed forgery should have
been brought before the Court. The prosecution has not brought
on record who has actually forged the signature of Murlidhar.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
6 cri appeal 289.98
Murlidhar in the examination in chief at Exhibit 48 stated that,
sale deed on which the prosecution relies does not bear his
signature or thumb impression. Merely, because the complainant
has stated so cannot form the basis for conviction, in absence of
any other evidence brought on record by the prosecution about
said contention of the complainant. The prosecution has failed to
prove that, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 executed documents in their
favour nor proved that accused/appellant No. 4 and 5 have put
their signature as attesting witnesses. The Sub Registrar was
not examined to prove that accused or any other person has
executed the alleged sale deed and signed the sale deed in
presence of Sub Registrar. The legal presumption is that official
acts have been duly performed and registration of the document
was properly done unless contrary is proved. The alleged act of
forgery had come to the knowledge of complainant on 12.11.1986,
however the complaint is registered on 23.11.1986. There is delay
of 11 days in filing the complaint. The same has not been
properly explained. Therefore, according to the counsel for the
respondent, on this ground alone the complaint should have been
rejected. It is further submitted that, the crime was registered
on 23.11.1986 and respondents were arrested on 01.10.1987.
There was inordinate delay in effecting arrest of the accused
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
7 cri appeal 289.98
person. It is further submitted that, P.W. 3/complainant in his
deposition before the Court has stated, "I had filed private
complaint against the same accused. It was dismissed."
Therefore, the counsel would submit that, the present appeal is
devoid of any merits and same may be dismissed.
08. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on
exposition of the Supreme Court in case of
Kishan Singh
(Dead) through L.R.s Vs. Gurpal Singh and others reported
in and submitted that standard of proof
(2010) 8 S. C. C. 775
required in the Civil and Criminal cases is entirely different.
The civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities of evidence, while in the criminal cases the entire
burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, the counsel for the respondents
would submit that, in the instance case the prosecution has
failed to bring on record cogent and convincing evidence to
convict the accused/respondents for the alleged offence against
them. He further placed reliance in case of
Shahi Kumar
Banerjee Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee reported in AIR 1964
and more particularly para 22 and 23 of the cited
SC 529
judgment and submitted that, the evidence of the expert is not
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
8 cri appeal 289.98
substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is usual
to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by
circumstantial evidence. It is further submitted that, mere
opinion of the expert cannot override the positive evidence of the
attesting witnesses. The learned counsel further placed reliance
on the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in case of
reported in
Ishwari Prasad Misra V. Mohd. Isa (1963) 3 SCR
722 and in particular para 26 of the said judgment which
concludes that, the evidence given by expert of handwriting can
never be conclusive, because it is, after all, opinion evidence.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that, the judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court of
acquittal needs no interference. A possible view has been taken
by the lower Appellate Court.
09. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the
learned A.P.P. for the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondents and also perused the impugned judgment and order
and the record and proceedings. The respondents herein were
convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Selu for the
offences punishable U/Sec. 420, 467, 468 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and they were sentences. The accused No. 1 was
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
9 cri appeal 289.98
sentenced till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/ in
default to under go S. I. for two months on all counts. Remaining
accused were sentenced to under go S. I. for six months each and
to pay fine of Rs. 3000/ each in default to under go S. I. for three
months, on all counts.
On careful perusal of evidence brought on record and the
judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, it clearly emerges
that prosecution has not brought any convincing, cogent and
sufficient evidence to convict the respondents for the offences
punishable U/Sec. 420, 467 and 468 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. It appears that, the Trial Court placed heavy
reliance only on the evidence of complainant and without sending
the documents to hand writing expert or without having any
other evidence on record collected by the prosecution convicted
the respondents. It is the case of prosecution that the
complainant never signed the alleged sale deeds and his
signature was forged by some other person. It was incumbent
upon the prosecution machinery to find out who has forged the
signature of the complainant. The prosecution case is that, the
complainant never went to the Sub Registrar Office. He has
never signed the sale deeds, in that case the prosecution should
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
10 cri appeal 289.98
have made serious attempts to find out who was the person
substituted in place of Murlidhar. As many as five accused
persons were facing trial and therefore, it was duty of the
prosecution to find out the roll of each accused in commission of
crime. Whether respondents have made forged signature of the
complainant or there was any other person who forged the
signature of the complainant has not been convincingly brought
on record by the prosecution. When the prosecution case is that
in furtherance of common intention of the accused, they
knowingly substituted another person for Murlidhar Randad, the
owner of gat No. 48 for getting executed the sale deed in the
name of Murlidhar Randad in order to get some property
transfered, in that case the prosecution was bound to bring on
record cogent, sufficient and clinching evidence to find out the
involvement of the accused in commission of crime. On perusal
of the entire evidence brought on record, it does not appear that
there was even attempt on behalf of the prosecution to collect the
evidence.
As rightly concluded by the lower Appellate Court, it was
necessary to send the signature for verification of the hand
writing expert so as to ascertain whether said signature is forged
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
11 cri appeal 289.98
signature or the complainant himself has signed the said sale
deed. Merely, relying on the statement of the complainant,
conviction cannot be sustained. Therefore, the conclusion drawn
by the lower Appellate Court that, the prosecution has failed to
prove that, the accused singly or jointly forged the signature of
Murlidhar needs to be confirmed. The lower Appellate Court is
also correct in reaching to the conclusion that the examination of
Sub Registrar would have been certainly revealed as to who had
presented the document for registration. There is legal
presumption that, official acts have been duly performed and
registration of the document is properly done unless, contrary
was proved by the prosecution. There was also delay in filing
the complaint. The lower Appellate Court has taken into
consideration infirmities in the prosecution case and ultimately
acquitted the respondents.
11. Though the learned A.P.P. submitted that, in Civil case the
signature of the complainant was sent to the hand writing expert
and it has come on record that, said signature was forged.
However, in the criminal case such exercise is not done as stated
earlier. The standard of proof which is required in civil cases is
different than in the criminal cases, unless the prosecution
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::
12 cri appeal 289.98
proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, the person cannot be
convicted. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that, the Civil
Court has decided the civil proceedings in favour of the panch
committee. This Court has not expressed any opinion about said
proceedings. The Civil Court is competent to decide the civil
proceeding and if the Civil Court has decided the proceedings in
favour of panch committee or complainant as the case may be,
the upholding acquittal order of the lower Appellate Court by
this Court cannot construed as impediment in the civil
proceedings. Therefore, for the reasons stated herein above, in
my opinion, the impugned judgment and order is in consonance
with the evidence on record, same stands confirmed. The appeal
stands dismissed. Bail bonds stand cancelled.
[ S. S. SHINDE, J.]
bsb/Feb. 11
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:56:03 :::