Tripura High Court
Complainant vs The State Of Tripura on 31 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.A.No.30 of 2024
Md. Abdul Ajij,
S/O- Late Ersad Ullah,
R/O Vill- Srinathpur,
P.S.- Kailashahar (Earlier) At present Irani P.S.,
District-Unakoti Tripura.
....Complainant Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of Tripura.
2. Sri Jayanta Das,
S/O- Sri Jogendra Das,
R/O Vill- Govindapur,
P.S.- Kailashahar, District- Unakoti Tripura.
3. Sri Aditya Sankar Roy Choudhury,
S/O- Lt. Ashutosh Roy Choudhury,
R/O Vill- Govindapur,
P.S.- Kailashahar, District- Unakoti Tripura.
4. Md. Abdul Kadir,
S/O- Md. Abdul Sahid,
R/O Vill- Barkhala,
P.S.- Kailashahar, District- Unakoti Tripura.
5. Sri Nripendra Das,
S/O- Lt. Manindra Chandra Das,
R/O Vill- Rajnagar,
P.S.- Fatikroy P.S. District- Unakoti Tripura
6. Sri Krishna Mohan Sharma,
S/O- Lt. Banka Bihari Sharma,
R/O Vill- Srinathpur,
P.S.- Kailashahar, District- Unakoti Tripura
7. Smt Mukti Deb,
W/O- Sri Subir Deb,
R/O Vill- Kacharghat,
P.S.- Kailashahar, District- Unakoti Tripura.
........Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, Adv,
Ms Saswati Nag, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.,
Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.
Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr.
Adv,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 28.10.2025
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 31.10.2025
Whether fit for
Reporting : YES
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
Leave Granted.
This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment
and order of acquittal dated 15.05.2023 delivered by Learned
CJM, Unakoti District, Kailashahar in connection with case No.
CR 227 of 2015.
02. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Ratan Datta assisted by
by Ms S. Nag appearing on behalf of the appellant and also
heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman assisted by
Learned Counsel, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee appearing on
behalf of the all the respondent-accused persons. Further,
heard Learned Additional P.P., Mr. R. Saha appearing on behalf
of the State-respondent.
03. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the
appellant first of all drawn the attention of the Court that the
appellant-complainant filed this case before the Learned Trial
Court alleging commission of forgery by the alleged accused
persons in respect of withdrawal of money from his account by
forging his signatures and before the Learned Trial Court he
adduced witnesses in support of his case, but Learned Trial
Court without appreciating the evidence on record properly
acquitted all the accused persons from the charge of this case.
It was further submitted by Learned Counsel that admittedly in
this case certain documents were produced on record but those
documents were not proved and marked as exhibits and the
trial was not conducted properly. So, on conclusion of
argument, Learned Counsel for the appellant urged for
remanding back the matter to the Learned Trial Court for
denovo trial. It was also submitted by Learned Counsel for the
appellant that the appellant being a poor person has got prima
facie case and if the evidence on record is properly appreciated
then it will clear that the accused persons made conspiracy and
committed the offence and it was further submitted that since
the appellant is a poor person being ignorant of law could not
conduct the case properly through his engaged counsel, so,
Learned Counsel further urged for allowing this appeal by
remanding the matter back to the concerned Trial Court to
allow the appellant to adduce documentary evidence in support
of his case.
04. On the contrary, Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Roy
Barman appearing on behalf of all the respondent-accused
persons first of all submitted that the present appellant twice
filed complaint against the accused persons to police station
and the case was registered and in both the occasions the case
was ended in final report in absence of evidence on record and
furthermore, although on the statement of the appellant under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken by Learned CJM,
Unakoti District, Kailashahar and before the Learned Trial Court
the present appellant could not adduce any documentary
evidence on record to substantiate the charge. It was further
submitted that regarding alleged forgery, no pass book, no
withdrawal slips were produced and proved by the appellant
before the Learned Trial Court and even no report of the
forensic expert was obtained to substantiate that the
signatures were forged by the accused persons. It was also not
clearly explained what was the role of the alleged accused
persons with the alleged commission of offence and
furthermore, at this stage, there is no scope on the part of this
Court to fill up the gap of the complainant by remanding back
the matter to the Learned Trial Court again for denovo trial.
Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that this
is an old pending matter and inspite of allowing opportunity the
appellant-complainant failed to substantiate the charge by
adducing documentary evidence on record. So, Learned Senior
Counsel submitted that there is no merit in this appeal and
urged for dismissal of this appeal.
05. Reliance was placed by Learned Counsel, Mr. S.
Bhattcharjee appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused
persons to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Babu Saheba Gouda Rudra Goudar & Ors. vs. State of
Karnataka dated 19.04.2024 114 in Crl.A.No.985 of 2010
reported in (2025) 1 TLR (SC) wherein in para Nos.37, 38,
39 & 40 Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:
"37. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and
Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal
position covering the field after considering various
earlier judgments and held as below :
"29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this
Court culled out the following general principles
regarding the powers of the appellate court while
dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa
case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4
SCC 415]
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding
powers of the appellate court while dealing with
an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An Appellate Court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of
such power and an appellate court on the
evidence before it may reach its own conclusion,
both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient
grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted
conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not
intended to curtail extensive powers of an
appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.
Such phraseologies are more in the nature of
"flourishes of language" to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to
review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An Appellate Court, however, must bear in
mind that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him
under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the
trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate
court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
recorded by the trial court. "
38. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka,
(2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarised the principles
governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section
378 of CrPC as follows :
"8.1. The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal
against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the
oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The Appellate Court, while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, after reappreciating the
evidence, is required to consider whether the
view taken by the trial court is a possible view
which could have been taken on the basis of the
evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view was
also possible; and
8.5. The Appellate Court can interfere with the
order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that
the only conclusion which can be recorded on the
basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt
of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable
doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope
of interference by an Appellate Court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in
favour of the accused has to be exercised within the
four corners of the following principles:
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from
patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record; and
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible
and only the view consistent with the guilt of the
accused is possible from the evidence available
on record.
40. The Appellate Court, in order to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent
findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse
the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."
Relying upon the said judgment, Learned Counsel,
Mr. Bhattacharjee drawn the attention of the Court that the
facts and circumstances of the present case is squarely
covered by the principle of the said judgment and finally urged
for dismissal of this appeal.
06. Heard both the sides at length and perused the
record of the Learned Trial Court as well as the judgment
delivered by the Learned Trial Court. In this case initially
present appellant filed one FIR to O/C of the concerned P.S.
and after completion of investigation the I.O. submitted final
report for want of evidence and against the final report the
appellant filed objection and on the basis of the objection,
Learned CJM proceeded to record the statement of the
complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the
statement was recorded and after recording statement of the
complainant cognizance was taken and process was issued
against all the respondent-accused persons. It was the
assertions of the appellant that he was an MGNREGA
beneficiary and worked under different projects under the
same scheme. In the year 2008-2010 the remuneration of the
said scheme used to be deposited/credited in the accounts of
the beneficiaries in the post-office and as a beneficiary he had
an account at Baburbazar post-office for deposit of money of
his remuneration in the said account. The passbook of the said
account was kept by MGNREGA Master, Sri Krishna Mohan
Sharma and thereafter, the same was kept by MGNREGA
Master Md.Abdul Kadir and all the passbooks of the
beneficiaries were used to kept by the MGNREGA Masters on
the plea that it was necessary to keep the passbooks with
them so that the entries in the passbooks could be tally with
the job cards.
In the year 2010, at the time of withdrawal of
money from his account he could understand that a sum of
total Rs.6,000/- was withdrawn by someone from his account.
For verification of the matter, he approached the officials of the
Baburbazar Post Office where his account was maintained but
got no cooperation. After that he filed the RTI application but
that was not considered and thereafter, he sought redress to
Kailashahar Post Office where he could collect the information
and copies of some withdrawal forms. It came to his
knowledge that some money was withdrawn from his money
forging his signature. It was further submitted that during the
period when the withdrawal was made that time Subrata
Bhattacharjee, Aditya Choudhury, Mukti Deb and Nripendra
Das were the Post Masters of the respective Post Office.
07. Before the Learned Trial Court charge under Section
408/409/420 of IPC was framed against all the accused
persons to which they pleaded not guilty of offence and
claimed to be tried. Now in a prosecution under Section 408 of
IPC the prosecution should prove the following ingredients:
(i) That the accused was entrusted with some
property;
(ii) That the accused was so entrusted as a clerk or
servant;
(iii) That the accused had dominion over such
property; and
(iv) That the accused committed breach of trust in
respect of that property.
Further in a prosecution under Section 409 of IPC,
the prosecution also should prove the following ingredients:
(i) That the accused was a public servant, or a
banker or merchant or agent or factor or broker or an
attorney;
(ii) That in such capacity the accused was entrusted
with certain property or he gained dominion over such property
which was not his own; and
(iii) That the accused committed breach of trust with
respect to such property.
Further to establish charge under Section 420 of IPC
following ingredients are to be proved:
(i) That there must be deception i.e. the accused
must have deceived someone,
(ii) that by the said deception the accused must
induce a person,
(a) to deliver any property; or
(b) to make, alter or destroy the whole or part of
the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and
which is capable of being converted into a valuable property.
(iii) that the accused did so dishonestly.
08. To substantiate the charge the appellant-complainant has
adduced his witnesses. For the sake of convenience, let us
discuss herein below the relevant synopsis of the evidence on
record. It is further to be noted here that initially on the basis
of FIR of the appellant although the case was registered, but
the case was ended in final report for want of evidence and
challenging the final report the present appellant filed objection
and after recording statement cognizance was taken by
Learned Trial Court. Now let us see what was the evidence on
record.
09. PW-1 is the I.O. who conducted initial investigation
of the case filed by the appellant. He in his examination-in-
chief very specifically stated that during investigation it did not
reveal to him that the signature of the appellant was forged
although the complainant alleged that his signature was
forged. He further stated that during his investigation he did
not verify the fact as to whether the signature on the
withdrawal slips, which were seized during investigation of the
case were actually the signature of the informant or not. It
was further stated that the withdrawal slips dated 31.12.2008
and 13.02.2009 does contain the signature of Krishna Mohan
Sharma as being the identifier of the signatures which such
withdrawal slips contains. He further stated that during
investigation it also revealed that the Post Master of
Baburbazar Post Office did not verify the signatures in the said
withdrawal slips dated 31.12.2008 and 13.02.2009. Again he
stated that during investigation it was not revealed that the
GRS and the Post Officials had hatched a criminal conspiracy to
forge the signature of the complainant to get illegal gain.
His cross-examination was reserved but later on the
appellant failed to produce the said witness for his cross-
examination by the respondent-accused persons. So, virtually
there is no scope to place any reliance upon his evidence. Even
if his examination-in-chief is believed it transpires that he
specifically stated that during investigation nothing revealed
that the signature of the informant/complainant was forged.
10. Similarly, PW-2 is the seizure list witness who put
his signature on the seizure memo as a witness regarding
seizure of some withdrawal slips and passbooks.
11. PW-3 is the complainant-cum-appellant who also
reiterated the same statement made during recording
statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
He was cross-examined by the respondent-accused
persons. During cross-examination by the respondent-accused,
he stated he did not submit any MNREGA book in connection
with the case. He again stated that in the year 2011 he filed a
criminal case against the accused persons namely Krishna
Mohan Sharma and Nripendra Das in the 'Permanent Lok
Adalat' in respect of alleged withdrawal of money amounting to
Rs.6,000/-.
12. PW-4, Abdul Salam is the brother of the appellant,
is the hearsay evidence who stated that the appellant informed
him that the accused persons, Krishna Mohan Sharma, Jayanta
Das and Md. Abdul Kadir fraudulently withdrawn his money
from his passbook by forging his signature maintained in
Baburbazar Post Office.
13. PW-5, Md. Habibur Rahaman stated that during the
period from the year 2008 to 2010 in the Srinathpur Gram
Panchayat there had been huge embezzlement of Govt. money
from MNREGA fund and during that period at about 01.00 PM
he was in his shop situated near Baburbazar Post Office heard
some hue and cry outside his shop and that time he came out
and found a big gathering nearby the Baburbazar Post Office
where he could know that some amount of money was
fraudulently withdrawn from his account by forging his
signature. Further he stated that the appellant sought
information from the Post Office which was refused to furnish
to him and it was further submitted that the MNREGA book of
many persons of Srinathpur used to be kept in the custody of
the concerned GRS of Srinathpur Gram Panchayat.
During cross-examination he stated that about 5
numbers of withdrawal slips had been forged by putting
signatures thereon in Bengali purporting to be that of the
complainant.
14. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.
Admittedly in this case, the appellant could not adduce and
prove any documentary evidence in support of his allegation
against any of the accused persons. No passbook is produced
and proved, no withdrawal slips were produced and proved in
this case. Even no expert report like evidence of scientific
expert is proved to substantiate the charge against the accused
persons. In a case of this nature, it was duty of the appellant
to prove with specific date and time that the accused persons
had committed forgery of his signatures having made
conspiracy with the staff of the Post Office. Surprisingly, in
this case nothing is proved in this regard by the appellant.
Police also conducted investigation and ultimately they filed
final report, rather the I.O., who conducted investigation and
submitted final report was called for as witness by the
appellant in this case who in his examination-in-chief very
specifically stated that in course of his investigation it did not
reveal to him that the signature of the accused was forged and
more interestingly he was not tendered for cross-examination
by the accused persons. Situated thus, no reliance can be
placed upon the evidence of the said witness, PW-1. PW-2 is
nothing but a seizure list witness. PW-4 is the brother of the
appellant is a hearsay witness. Similarly, PW-5 is also a
hearsay witness. So, legally, there is no scope to place any
reliance upon their evidence and even from their evidence also
nothing revealed against any of the respondent-accused
persons showing their involvement with the alleged offence.
Now, only the appellant to substantiate the charge deposed
against the respondent-accused persons. But from his
evidence, it cannot be ascertained when the accused persons
committed the offence and in which time and what was their
role in the alleged commission of offence and from which
period the accused persons were the concerned GRS of the
respective panchayat, nothing could be inferred from the
evidence of PW-3, i.e. the appellant. Similarly, what was the
role of the staff of the Post Office, how they have/had
committed the offence, is/was explained by the appellant in
this case and in a case of this nature, in absence of proper
police investigation, it is very difficult for an individual to
substantiate any sort of charge regarding forgery of signatures
until and unless the withdrawal slips are examined by the
scientific expert with the signature of the appellant it cannot be
ascertained that his signatures were forged by the accused
persons. From the record of the Learned Trial Court, it appears
that certain documents were procured by the appellant but not
a single document was produced and proved by the appellant
has marked as exhibits in support of his case. Thus, it appears
that the entire case was conducted by the appellant in a very
casual manner and before this Court, at this stage, there is no
scope to fill up the gaps by remanding the matter back to the
Learned Trial Court again and since on perusal of the evidence
on record, it appears that the appellant even by adducing oral
evidence also could not give any specific account against any
of the accused persons showing their individual responsibility
and liability with the alleged commission of offence. Thus, it
appears that the present appellant has got no case to stand the
charge against any of the accused persons and Learned Trial
Court after considering the evidence on record, in my
considered opinion rightly delivered the judgment and order of
acquittal for which I do not find any scope to interfere with the
said judgment of the Learned Trial Court.
15. In this regard, it is apposite to refer herein a
judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in M.R. Ajayan vs. State
of Kerala and Ors. dated 20.11.2024 reported in (2024) SCC
OnLine SC 3373 wherein in para Nos.32 & 33 observed as
under:
"32. On this aspect, we must make reference to the
judgment of this Court in Nasib Singh v. State of
Punjab (3-Judge Bench) [(2022) 2 SCC 89], wherein it
was stated:
"33. The principles that emerge from the
decisions of this Court on retrial can be
formulated as under:
33.1. The appellate Court may direct a retrial
only in "exceptional" circumstances to avert a
miscarriage of justice....
33.6. The following are some instances, not
intended to be exhaustive, of when the Court
could order a retrial on the ground of
miscarriage of justice:
(a) The trial court has proceeded with the
trial in the absence of jurisdiction;
(b) The trial has been vitiated by an illegality
or irregularity based on a misconception of
the nature of the proceedings; and
(c) The prosecutor has been disabled or
prevented from adducing evidence as regards
the nature of the charge, resulting in the trial
being rendered a farce, sham or charade."
33. More recently, in Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar (2-
Judge Bench) (2024 SCC OnLine SC 984), this Court
summarized the power of an Appellate Court to order
retrial:
"8. Every trial is a march towards the truth. It is
the primary duty of the Court to search for the
truth using the procedural law as its tool. Such a
procedural law may have a substantive part
extending certain inalienable rights to both, the
accused and the victim. By non-compliance of the
procedural law, justice cannot be allowed to
derail. Anyone, who complains of an unfair trial,
is duty bound to satisfy the Court that he stands
prejudiced by it. This does not mean that a Court
can be lackadaisical in following the rules and
procedures meant to ensure justice.
9. A fair trial is the heart and soul of criminal
jurisprudence. The principle of democracy lies in
a fair trial. It is not only a statutory right, but also
a human right, which would be violated when the
safeguards provided under the Statute are not
followed. The absence of a fair trial would
seriously impair and violate the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. What is important to be
seen is the existence of a failure of justice, which
is obviously one of fact. A mere violation per se
would not vitiate the trial, especially when the
degree of substantivity exhibited in a statute is
minimal.
27. An Appellate Court has got ample power to
direct re-trial. However, such a power is to be
exercised in exceptional cases. The irregularities
found must be so material that a re-trial is the
only option. In other words, the failure to follow
the mandate of law must cause a serious
prejudice vitiating the entire trial, which cannot
be cured otherwise, except by way of a re-trial.
Once such a re-trial is ordered, the effect is that
all the proceedings recorded by the Court would
get obliterated leading to a fresh trial, which is
inclusive of the examination of witnesses."
(Emphasis supplied)"
From the aforesaid observation made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, it appears that the Appellate Court may direct
retrial or denovo trial only in exceptional circumstances to
avert a miscarriage of justice. Before the Learned Trial Court
the present appellant-complainant failed to take proper steps
for producing and proving the relevant documents to
substantiate the charge levelled against the accused persons,
even no forensic expert was produced to substantiate that the
signature of the appellant-complainant were forged by the
accused persons and no such effort in this regard was taken by
the appellant-cum-complainant inspite of having the assistance
of his lawyer. Even no prayer was made by the appellant
before the Learned Trial Court.
16. Situated thus, at this stage, there is no scope on the
part of the appellant to fill up the gaps that have arisen in the
judgment by remanding back the matter to the Learned Trial
Court for denovo trial. As such the present appeal bears no
merit and accordingly the same is liable to be
rejected/dismissed henceforth.
17. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant bears
no merit, accordingly, the said stands dismissed. The judgment
and order of acquittal delivered by Learned CJM, Unakoti
District, Kailashahar in connection with case No. CR 227 of
2015 dated 15.05.2023 is hereby upheld accordingly. The
respondent-accused persons are also stands discharged from
the liability of this appeal.
Send down the record to the Learned Trial Court
along with a copy of this judgment/order.
With this observation, this appeal stands disposed
of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
JUDGE
AMRITA DEB AMRITA DEB
Date: 2025.11.01 17:06:50
+05'30'
Purnita
