THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 27 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal preferred by the State against the judgment, dated 10.07.2007 passed in C.C.No.62 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Nalgonda, acquitting the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 427, 418, 467 and 471 of I.P.C.
The gravamen of the charge against the respondents/accused is that they played mischief over P.W.1, forged the signatures of P.W.1, prepared dishonestly a false document of endorsement, cancellation forms and clearance certificate which purported to give an authority to deliver the tractor bearing No.A.P.27 T 3444 and Trailer bearing No. A.P. 27 T 3445 and on the strength of those created documents, transferred the ownership of the vehicles by selling them.
On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 406, 418, 427, 467 and 471 of I.P.C. came to be framed, read over and explained to the respondents/accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and M.O.1. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the respondents/accused were examined 2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of the respondents/accused Ex.D1 was marked.
The trial Court, on appraisal of entire evidence both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the respondents/accused for the offences with which they were charged and accordingly, acquitted the accused.
Heard both sides.
It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore, to be characterized as perverse. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 3
As seen from the material on record, it is evident that Accused No.1 had entered into a hire purchase agreement with P.W.1 for purchasing the tractor and trailer and took financial assistance of Rs.60,000/- from M/s. Vijaya Lakshmi Auto Financiers, Huzurnagar, represented by its Managing Partner- P.W.1. Admittedly, the original hire purchase agreement is the material document and the signature of P.W.1 available on the said agreement is the best standard signature for comparison. As seen from the Memo-Ex.P4 filed by the Investigating Officer, it is clear that the Investigating Officer had not received any original hire purchase agreement from P.W.1, but P.W.1 in his evidence specifically deposed that P.W.6-the Sub Inspector of Police had collected the original hire purchase agreement from him at the police station. In the absence of original hire purchase agreement, the trial Court held that the signatures on Exs.P2 and P3 belong to P.W.1 and that the prosecution has failed to establish that the signatures of P.W.1 on Exs.P2 and P3 are forged and that the accused have used those forged documents in the Regional Transport Authority Office for cancellation of hire purchase agreement in the name of A-1. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that A-2 had subscribed those alleged signatures and also there is no evidence to show that A-1 and A-2 have committed mischief.
4
The trial Court having taken into consideration various factors proceeded not to rely on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for not accepting the version of the incident spoken to by P.W 1.
In the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused. The trial Court was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused. Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the findings or any valid ground to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 23.02.2021 Gsn