Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 11.03.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No. 17/1991, which quashed the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate in R.C.C. No. 33/1989 dated 01.02.1991. The prosecution case was that the complainant Murlidhar S/o Mohanlal Randad was the adopted son of Rambhabai, who owned field Gat No. 48. Rambhabai had gifted the field to the temple of God Maroti in 1961, and after her death, Murlidhar became the owner. On 12.11.1986, Murlidhar executed a registered gift deed in favour of the panch committee. However, it was alleged that on 22.10.1986, accused Nos. 1 to 3 (Dwarkabai, Keshav, and Rama) by impersonation obtained the signature of the complainant from another person and executed a sale deed purportedly by the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint, and after investigation, charges were framed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC. The trial court convicted the accused, but the appellate court acquitted them. The State appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant did not appear before the court to identify the accused or depose about the impersonation. The prosecution witnesses were not reliable, and the sale deed was not proved to be forged. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Impersonation and Forgery - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC - Burden of Proof - The prosecution failed to establish that the complainant was impersonated and that the sale deed was forged, as the complainant did not appear to identify the accused or depose about the impersonation. Held that the appellate court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and no interference was warranted (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons impersonated the complainant and executed a forged sale deed, and whether the appellate court was justified in acquitting the accused.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on prosecution
- standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- presumption of innocence
- appreciation of evidence in criminal appeal
- ingredients of impersonation and forgery
