The State Of A.P., vs Palvai Subhadra
2021 Latest Caselaw 515 Tel

           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

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.

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.

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