Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a criminal trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, in West Bengal, where the first appellant, Sekander Sheikh, was charged with forging a valuable security punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and with falsely personating another and presenting a document for registration under Section 82(c) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The second appellant, Hasibuddin Sheikh, was charged with abetment of these offences. The forgery charge was tried by a jury, while the Registration Act offence was tried by the same judge without a jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty by a majority of 4 to 3 on the forgery and abetment charges, but the trial judge refused to accept the verdict, stating that there was absolutely no reliable evidence, and referred the case to the Calcutta High Court under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The judge also acquitted both appellants of the offences under the Registration Act. The High Court declined the reference, found sufficient evidence to establish the offences under Section 467 and Section 467 read with Section 109 IPC, and sentenced each appellant to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court with a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The facts alleged were that on or about January 15, 1958, in Berhampore, the first appellant forged a Heba-nama in favour of Ali Hossain, purporting to execute it in the name of Kaimuddin Sheikh, and presented it for registration before the sub-registrar while falsely personating Kaimuddin. The second appellant was alleged to have abetted by identifying the first appellant as Kaimuddin. The prosecution examined Swarana Kumar Dey, who testified that he had engrossed the document, that the first appellant executed it as Kaimuddin, and that the second appellant identified the executant as Kaimuddin. Kaimuddin himself denied executing or presenting any such document. Evidence was also given that specimen thumb impressions of the appellants were compared by a handwriting expert with the thumb impressions in the sub-registry register, and the first appellant's impressions matched. The main legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the High Court could rely on evidence tendered for the Registration Act offence, for which the accused had been acquitted, to convict them under the Penal Code; whether the trial judge was justified in rejecting the jury's verdict under Section 307 CrPC; and whether the taking of thumb impressions violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The appellants argued that acquittal for false personation meant that the evidence was not reliable and could not be used for the forgery charge, and that the judge's view should be accepted. The State argued that the evidence was sufficient and the jury's verdict was reasonable. The Supreme Court held that in a reference under Section 307 CrPC, the view of the jury must prevail unless no reasonable body of men could have reached the conclusion arrived at by the jury. The trial judge's mere disagreement was insufficient to justify rejecting the verdict. The Court further held that an item of evidence may corroborate charges for more than one offence, and acquittal for one such offence does not render that evidence inadmissible in assessing criminality for another offence; the question is one of weight, not admissibility. This principle was supported by Malak Khan v. King Emperor. On the constitutional issue, the Court noted that taking thumb impressions is not self-incrimination under Article 20(3), as held in The State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, and counsel for the appellants ultimately conceded this point. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences under Section 467 and Section 467/109 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Forgery and False Personation - Distinct Offences - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 467, 109; Indian Registration Act, 1908, Section 82(c) - The first appellant was charged with forging a Heba-nama in favour of Ali Hossain by impersonating Kaimuddin Sheikh, and the second with abetment. The trial judge acquitted both under the Registration Act for false personation, but the High Court convicted under the Indian Penal Code. Held that forging a valuable security and presenting it for registration are two distinct offences, and evidence of one may corroborate the other. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Criminal Procedure - Reference to High Court under Section 307 CrPC - Jury Verdict - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 307 - The trial judge rejected the jury's 4:3 guilty verdict as being based on no reliable evidence and referred the case to the High Court. The High Court declined the reference and convicted the appellants. Held that if the jury takes one view of the evidence and the judge another, the jury's view must prevail unless no reasonable body of men could have reached it; mere disagreement is not sufficient to disregard the verdict. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Criminal Law - Evidence - Acquittal in One Offence and Admissibility in Another - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 467; Indian Registration Act, 1908, Section 82(c) - The appellants argued that since they were acquitted of the Registration Act offence and no appeal was filed, the High Court could not use the same evidence to convict them under the Penal Code. Held that an item of evidence may corroborate charges for more than one offence, and acquittal of the accused for one such offence does not render that evidence inadmissible in assessing criminality for another offence; the question is one of weight, not admissibility. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Constitutional Law - Self-Incrimination - Article 20(3) - Constitution of India, Article 20(3) - Evidence of specimen thumb impressions taken during investigation was relied upon by the prosecution. Held that taking thumb impressions or specimen writing is not 'to be a witness' under Article 20(3) and does not violate the prohibition against self-incrimination; State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad followed. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in a reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 could rely on evidence tendered to prove an offence under Section 82(c) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, for which the accused were acquitted, to convict them under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and whether the trial judge was justified in rejecting the jury's verdict.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences of the appellants under Section 467 and Section 467 read with Section 109 IPC, affirming that the High Court was justified in relying on the evidence and in not accepting the trial judge's rejection of the jury verdict.
Law Points
- Jury verdict must prevail unless no reasonable body of men could have reached it
- In a reference under Section 307 CrPC judge's mere disagreement is not sufficient to reject jury verdict
- Evidence admissible for one offence remains admissible for another even if accused acquitted of first
- Acquittal of one offence affects weight not admissibility of overlapping evidence
- Taking thumb impressions does not violate Article 20(3) of Constitution
