Five individuals were acquitted in a forgery case by the Bombay High Court, citing a flawed investigation that lacked a handwriting expert report on the signatories of the forged document. Justice G.A. Sanap noted that without such a report, it cannot be ruled out that the complainant himself was responsible for the forged signatures.
Brief Facts:
Sharad Bonde, an assistant superintendent at Amravati University, learned from an acquaintance, accused No. 3, that a plot of land belonging to a member of Samata Gruh Nirman Sahkari Society, Amravati was for sale. Bonde and accused No. 3 approached accused Nos. 1-3, who claimed to have purchased the plot from the original owner and agreed to sell it to Bonde for Rs. 80 per sq. ft. Bonde paid Rs. 90,000 to accused No. 1, who promised to transfer the plot to Bonde's name in the society's record. Accused Nos. 1-3 brought the original owner, Bhalchandra Sarjoshi, to the society's office to confirm the sale, and Bonde paid Rs. 1,82,000 to accused No. 1, who executed a document and took a brokerage charge of Rs. 48,000.
The plot was transferred to Bonde on 19.10.2000. When Bonde applied for permission to build on the plot, society informed him that the plot belonged to Sarjoshi. Bonde realized that the documents were forged and reported the crime to the police, resulting in the registration of a case against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty, and the learned Magistrate acquitted them due to the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The state and Bonde appealed the acquittal in the criminal revision application.
Contentions of the Applicant:
It was argued that there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence to prove the guilt of the accused individuals beyond a reasonable doubt and that the magistrate did not properly appreciate the evidence of the informant. The admitted documents were deemed sufficient to prove the charges of forgery and cheating, and it was suggested that the evidence on record is reliable and the delay in lodging the FIR was explained. The conduct of the informant and the failure to find the fake person who signed the documents in the name of the original owner were viewed as given undue importance by the magistrate.
Observations of the Court:
After reviewing the evidence and the Magistrate's findings, the court observed that there was no reason to reverse the order of acquittal for the accused. The accused No. 1, who was the initiator of the transaction, had deceased. The court held that it was evident that accused Nos. 2 to 5 were not directly involved in the transfer of the plot, and there was no evidence that they received any consideration for the sale. Additionally, the informant had filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 4,30,000/- from the accused Nos. 1 to 5, which was partly decreed, but the claim against the accused Nos. 2 to 5 was not granted.
The appeal filed against this judgment and decree of a civil Court also came to be dismissed. The fact that the informant took recourse to civil litigation for recovery of his amount, and accused Nos. 2 to 5 were not found liable to pay the money claimed in the suit, was a strong circumstance in favor of accused Nos. 2 to 5.
Furthermore, the court remarked that there was doubt about the case of the prosecution and the informant's conduct, as the signatures on the documents were not proved and the fake person was not traced out. The informant also lodged the report after two months from the date of his knowledge. Reasonable doubt was created on the role of the informant since there was no report of the handwriting expert with regard to the author or the signatories of the documents. The investigation on that aspect was held to be defective. Thus, the bench concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the guilt against accused Nos. 2 to 5.
The decision of the Court:
The criminal appeal and revision application stood dismissed.
Case Title: Sharad vs State of Maharashtra and others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G.A. Sanap
Case no.: CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO.215 OF 2004
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr P. R. Agrawal
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr S. A. Ashirgade
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
