State of Rajasthan vs Maga Ram

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.—This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.5.1989 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur in Cr. Original Case No. 85/1983 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent for offence Under Sections 467 and 471 I.P.C.

This appeal arises in the following circumstances:

(i) On 24.1.1982, P.W.7 Ramesh Chandra lodged a written report Ex.P/10 with the Police Station, Udai Mandir, Jodhpur stating that the accused respondent was his tenant and that he presented a no objection authority letter Ex.P/2 before the Executive Engineer, PHED, along with affidavit Ex.P.1 and in that No Objection Authority letter Ex.P/2, he forged his signatures for the purpose of getting connection of water.

On this report Ex.P/10, the police chalked out regular F.I.R. Ex.P/25 and started investigation and during investigation a report was given by the document examiner and the same is Ex.P/31 and according to that report the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked Q1 do not agree in model and design with the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S1 to S18 and A1 and A2 of P.W.7 Ramesh Chandra.

On 5.2.1983, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges for offence Under Sections 467 and 471 I.P.C. against the accused respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent through his judgment and order dated 27.5.1989 inter alia holding that:

(i) That no case for offence u/s 467 I.P.C. is made out and, therefore, he acquitted the accused respondent for offence u/s 467 I.P.C.

(ii) That there is no evidence to prove that No Objection Authority letter Ex.P/2 was prepared by the accused respondent nor there is any evidence that the accused respondent himself forged the signatures of P.W.7 Ramesh Chandra on letter Ex.P/2.

(iii) That it is correct that the disputed signatures on letter Ex.P/2 were not of P.W.7 Ramesh Chandra, but there is no evidence that these forged signatures were prepared by the accused respondent as no specimen signatures of the accused respondent were taken by the police and, therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the fact that the disputed signatures on letter Ex.P/2 were in the hand-writing of the accused respondent.

(iv) That the fact that the accused respondent made extra judicial confession is not supported by independent witness P.W.13 Amba Shankar who has been declared hostile and P.W.6 Pukhraj and P.W.7 Ramesh Chandra are brothers and Interested witnesses as they were having dispute with the accused respondent for vacation of the house.

(v) That P.W.7 Ramesh Chandra was not actual landlord of the accused respondent and from this point of view also, no case can be said to have been proved against the accused respondent.

(vi) That signatures of accused respondent which have been made on Affidavit Ex.P/1 did not tally with the disputed signatures made on No Objection Authority letter Ex.P/2 as in letter Ex.P/2 the signatures were in English while on affidavit Ex.P/1 signatures were in Hindi.

Aggrieved from the said judgment and order this appeal has been filed by the State.

In this appeal, it has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that judgment and order of the learned Magistrate are erroneous one as there was evidence to prove the charges for the said offence against the accused respondent.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused respondent submits that the Judgment and order of the trial Magistrate are based on correct appreciation of evidence and the same do not call for interference by this Court.

I have heard both and perused the record.

Apart from the reasons mentioned above, there is one more aspect that has to be considered. P.W.2 Ram Swaroop who was employee of PHED has categorically stated that he could not say that who presented letter Ex.P/2 before him and P.W.3 Amrit Lal who was lawyer and Commissioner has categorically stated that letter Ex.P/2 was presented before him by one Deoraj and signatures on Ex.P/2 were put before him by some person, but he could not recognize that man.

The position of law with respect of hearing appeal against acquittal has been made clear by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in so many judgments and for that the important judgment of Ajit Samant v. State of Karnataka reported In AIR 1997 (SC) 3251 may be referred to.

While hearing appeal against acquittal, no doubt the High Court possesses all the powers, but the High Court has to keep In view the fact that presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and if the High Court on scrutiny of material available on record is of the opinion that there is another view which can reasonably be taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted.

In my considered opinion, the judgment of the learned Magistrate is based on correct appreciation of evidence and the reasons which has been assigned by the learned Magistrate are reasonable and plausible and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished and this Court sitting and hearing appeal against acquittal would not like to disturb the order of acquittal merely on flimsy grounds.

Since the learned Magistrate has arrived at the findings just quoted above and since they are based on correct appreciation of evidence, this Court should also give proper weight and consideration as the views of the trial Magistrate as to the credibility of the witnesses must be respected. Apart from this, the Court should be very slow in disturbing the findings of facts arrived at by the learned trial Magistrate as the Magistrate had advantage of seeing the witnesses and even if two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on evidence on record, the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the court below.

For the reasons mentioned above, the present State appeal is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 27.5.1989 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur.