Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a double murder and forgery trial in Sessions Trial No.76/2004. The principal accused, Shripad Dattatray Mande and Damodhar Konduji Ingale, were charged with murdering Purushottam Laxman Pimple and his wife Pratibha Pimple, and forging a Will dated 15-11-2003 in favour of accused No.1. The applicants, Uday Ashokrao Joshi and his mother Kumudini Ashokrao Joshi, were initially prosecution witnesses. During trial, Uday testified that he and his mother had signed the Will as attesting witnesses on the false representation of the principal accused, without knowing its contents. Based on this testimony and a similar statement before the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, the principal accused moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the applicants as additional accused. The trial court rejected the application, but the High Court allowed a revision and arrayed the applicants as accused. The Supreme Court confirmed that order but reserved liberty for the applicants to seek discharge. The applicants then filed an application (Exhibit 118) for discharge, which was rejected by the trial court. In the present revision, the High Court examined whether there was any prima facie case against the applicants. The court noted that the applicants were attesting witnesses who signed the Will on the representation of the principal accused. The court held that an attesting witness is not required to know the contents of the document, and mere attestation without knowledge of forgery does not constitute abetment or conspiracy. The court found no evidence that the applicants had any criminal intent or were part of any conspiracy. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the trial court's order, and discharged the applicants from the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 - Discharge - Attesting Witness - Prima Facie Case - The applicants were attesting witnesses to a Will allegedly forged by the principal accused. The court held that mere attestation without knowledge of forgery does not constitute abetment or conspiracy, and there was no prima facie case against them. (Paras 1-6) B) Evidence Act - Attesting Witness - Knowledge of Contents - The court observed that an attesting witness is not required to know the contents of the document; attestation only confirms the signature of the executant. The applicants' admission of signing on false representation did not establish criminal intent. (Paras 3-6) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 - Power to Summon Additional Accused - The power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised only if there is strong and cogent evidence against the person. In this case, the evidence of the applicants themselves showed they were unaware of the forgery, and thus no case was made out. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicants, who were attesting witnesses to a forged Will, can be discharged from the trial for double murder and forgery when there is no evidence of their knowledge of the forgery or conspiracy.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the trial court's order dated 06-05-2009 below Exhibit 118, and discharged the applicants from Sessions Trial No.76/2004.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC
- discharge
- prima facie case
- attesting witness
- forgery
- abetment
- conspiracy
