These three appeals, namely Criminal Appeal Nos. 68, 71 and 78 of 1981 can be disposed of by a common judgment as they are from an order of conviction dated 29.5.81 passed by the Special Judge, Gauhati in Special Case No. 6 of 1976. 2. The Special Judge convicted the accused Dulal Chandra Baruah, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1981, under sections 120 B, 114 read with 409, 114 read with 467, IPC and section 114 read with section 5(2), PC Act, the accused Had Nath Sarma, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No, 71 of 1,81, under section 120 B, 409, 114 read with 467, IPC and section 5(2) PC Act and accused Khageswar Konwar, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1981, under sections 120 B, 467, 114 read with 409, IPC and section 114, IPC read with section 5(2), PC Act. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that during the months of March, April and May of 1972, the accused were posted to the Dibrugarh West Embankment & Drainage Sub-Division of the Public Works (Brahmaputra Flood Control) Department of Government of Assam, the accused Hari Nath Sarma was the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), the accused Dulal Chandra Baruah was the Sectional Officer (SO) and the accused Khageswar Konwar was the Sectional Assistant (SA). The accusations' against three accused were that they entered into a conspiracy to dishonestly misappropriate an amount of Rs. 494.00 out of the labour wages shown in the muster roll for the annual repair works of a portion of the 'Bund'. in pursuance of the said conspiracy, they introduced fake names of 7 fictitious labourers in the muster roll and forged the muster roll by affixing thumb impressions of the accused Khageswar Konwar (SA) against the fake names of the fictitious labourers in the muster roll and falsely showing payment to them by endorsing false certificate of identification and payment. It is alleged that in pursuance of the conspiracy the accused Hari Nath Sarma (SDO) dishonestly misappropriated the said sum of Rs. It is alleged that in pursuance of the conspiracy the accused Hari Nath Sarma (SDO) dishonestly misappropriated the said sum of Rs. 494.00 and committed breach of the trust with respect to the said amount while the accused Khageswar Konwar (SA) committed forgery by putting his thumb impressions against the fake names of seven (7) fictitious labourers in the muster roll and all the three accused persons co-jointly committed the offences for which, they have been convicted, as already stated above. 4. The trial Judge has, basing on the evidence of the finger print expert, held that the thumb impressions on the muster roll were of Khageswar and that the prosecution has proved that those names of the seven (7) labourers appearing in the muster roll were fictitious persons. The names of the seven (7) labourers entered in the muster roll were Tapan Munda, Deben Muraand Saden Tati of Khomti Village, and Chand Tati, Tiken Chandra Kachari, Tukeswar Saikia and Nandeswar Borah of Bolay Village. 5. The PW 2 Chandra Sonowal and PW 5 Nilambar Sonowal are residents of Natun Bolay, PW 3 Nandi Sonowal is the resident of Bolay Village (old), PW 4 Janakdeo Singh is a resident of Kotoha. Their evidence is that there is/was no person named Chand Tati, Tiken Chandra Kachari, Tokeswar Saikia in the Village Bolay. The evidence of DW 2 Bishu Konwar is that he is a permanent resident of Dihing Thekerani which is at a distance of 11/2 furlong of 'Bund'. He knows Tapan, Deben and Sadan of Khantighat Village as well as Cliand, Tiken and Tuleswar of Bolay Village. The seven (7) persons and others have been working in the 'Bund' as daily labourers at the relevant time. 6. The positive evidence is that by which "the existence of a fact" is sought to be proved whereas the negative evidence is that by which "non-existence of a thing" is sought to be proved. Negative evidence is ordinarily no good to prove or disprove a fact in dispute. The standard of the burden of proof or the onus of proof between the prosecution and the defence are different. The nature of proof required for defence is lighter than the prosecution. 7. Keeping the above principle in view, let me now examine the case on hand. The evidence of PWs are negative evidence and the evidence of DW 2 is positive evidence. The nature of proof required for defence is lighter than the prosecution. 7. Keeping the above principle in view, let me now examine the case on hand. The evidence of PWs are negative evidence and the evidence of DW 2 is positive evidence. The accusation is that fake names of seven (7) fictitious labourers were entered in the muster roll. The evidence of PWs 2,3, 4 and 5 relate to three persons. There is no evidence of the remaining four persons. In the absence of the evidence, the natural conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the accusation so far as remaining 4 persons are concerned. As regards the three persons, there is positive evidence of DW 2 that seven (7) persons in question were daily labourers and they were working in the bund for four or five years as daily labourers. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case there is a doubt about the non-existence of 3 alleged persons. 8. The question which arises for consideration is whether basing only on the evidence of PW 12, the finger print expert that the thumb impressions were affixed by the accused K.N ages war Konwar would be sufficient to say that a false document namely, the muster roll, was prepared. The first part of section 464, IPC makes it clear that even if the prosecution proves that the accused had affixed his thumb impression to be believed that thumb impression had, in fact, been affixed by the person who is really not, the offence of making a false document is not committed until it is established that false document was prepared dishonestly or fraudulently. 9. In the present case, 'dishonestly' or 'fraudulently' is to be inferred from the documents, namely books of account and muster roll, and other circumstances. It has already been held that the prosecution has failed to prove about four (4) persons and the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the accused with regard to the non-existence of three (3) other persons. Under these circumstances, 'fraudulently' or 'dishonestly' cannot be inferred as there is no evidence that the sum of Rs. 494/- was misappropriated without paying to the labourers. 10. For the reasons stated above, the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proof and, therefore, has failed to prove guilty of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, 'fraudulently' or 'dishonestly' cannot be inferred as there is no evidence that the sum of Rs. 494/- was misappropriated without paying to the labourers. 10. For the reasons stated above, the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proof and, therefore, has failed to prove guilty of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the appeals are allowed, and the conviction and sentences are set aside and appellants are acquitted on all the charges.