Judgment : Challenge in this criminal appeals is to the conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case No.2 of 1995 by the Special Court for CBI cases, Madurai. 2.The nubble of the prosecution case is that the first accused viz., Murugesan has acted as an agent of National Insurance Company Limited during the years 1988-1990 and the second accused viz., Nagarajan is his brother and the third and fourth accused viz., Dr.S.Kanagaraj and Dr.A.Murali have acted as Veterinary Doctors, attached to the said Insurance Company and all the accused have conspired together so as to make false post-mortem certificates as if the cattle of Murugan, Marimuthu, Ramasamy, Mookaiyan, Rajendran, Paraman, Muthappan and Nagarajan have expired. In pursuance of their conspiracy, the first accused has made false claims to the tune of Rs.39,550/-. The third accused has given false post-mortem certificates. The fourth accused has also given false post-mortem certificates. Under the said circumstances, the accused 1 to 4 are said to have committed offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the first accused is said to have committed offence under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the third accused is said to have committed offence under Sections 468, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the fourth accused is said to have committed offence under Sections 468, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the first accused is also said to have committed offences under Sections 468, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the second accused is said to have committed offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The investigating agency has conducted investigation and after completing the same, laid a final report on the file of the trial Court. 3. The investigating agency has conducted investigation and after completing the same, laid a final report on the file of the trial Court. The trial Court, after pondering the alleged culpability of the accused, has framed first charge against the accused 1 to 4 under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, second charge against the first accused under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, third charge against the third accused under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, fourth charge against the third accused under Sections 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, fifth charge against the fourth accused under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, sixth charge against the fourth accused under Section 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, seventh charge against the first accused under Section 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and eighth charge against the second accused under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same have been read over and explained to them and all the accused have rejected the respective charges framed against them and claimed to be tried. 4. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 16 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P36 have been marked. 5. When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstance appearing in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crimes. No oral evidence has been adduced on the side of the accused. However, Ex.D1 has been marked on the side of the accused. 6. The trial Court, after pondering the evidence available on record, has found the accused 1 to 4 guilty under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and imposed a fine of Rs.100/- upon each of them with default clause. The first accused has been found guilty under Section 420 (3 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- upon each count with default clause. He has also been found guilty under Sections 468 & 471(3 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/-upon each count with default clause. He has also been found guilty under Sections 468 & 471(3 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/-upon each count with default clause. The second accused has been found guilty under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause. The third accused has been found guilty under Section 468 (1 count) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/- with default clause. He has also been found guilty under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-with default clause. The fourth accused has been found guilty under Section 468(2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/-upon each count with default clause. He has also been found guilty under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause. 7. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused 1 to 3 have filed Criminal Appeal No.645 of 1997 and the fourth accused has filed Criminal Appeal No.637 of 1997 on the file of this Court as appellants. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, common judgment is pronounced. 8. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that all the accused have entered into conspiracy so as to cheat the National Insurance Limited during the period of 1988-1990 and in pursuance of their conspiracy, they created false post-mortem certificates as if cattle of the persons namely Murugan, Marimuthu, Ramasamy, Mookaiyan, Rajendran, Paraman, Muthappan and Nagarajan have passed away and subsequently, the first accused has received a sum of Rs.39,550/-. 9. The trial Court has framed as many as eight charges against the accused and they have made candid denial. Since the accused have made candid denial with regard to the respective charges framed against them, it is for the prosecution to prove each and every charge to the satisfaction of the Court. 9. The trial Court has framed as many as eight charges against the accused and they have made candid denial. Since the accused have made candid denial with regard to the respective charges framed against them, it is for the prosecution to prove each and every charge to the satisfaction of the Court. The main charges framed against the accused are under Sections 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into the provision of the following relevant Sections; (a) Section420 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows; "Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." (b) Section468 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows; "Forgery for purpose of cheating.- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." (c) Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows; "Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.-Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record." 11. One Rajendran has been examined as PW1. He has stated in his evidence that after perusing all the relevant records, he has given sanction order so as to launch the prosecution against the accused 3 & 4 and the same have been marked as Exs.P1 & P2. 12. The Claim Manager of National Insurance Company Limited viz., Selvarajan has been examined as PW3. He has stated in his evidence about the procedure for appointment of an agent and the procedure for insuring an animal. 12. The Claim Manager of National Insurance Company Limited viz., Selvarajan has been examined as PW3. He has stated in his evidence about the procedure for appointment of an agent and the procedure for insuring an animal. Further he has stated that insurance can be made only after ascertaining the given particulars are genuine and further he has deposed the relevant procedure of getting compensation. 13. The then Administrative Officer of National Insurance Company Limited viz., S.Srinivasan has been examined as PW4. He has stated in his evidence that on 24.02.1989 one Assistant Branch Manager by name Komathinayagam has appointed the first accused as an agent of the National Insurance Company Limited and the appointment order has been marked as Ex.P5. Further he speaks about the claims made in the names of Murugan, Marimuthu, Ramasamy, Mookaiyan, Rajendran, Paraman, Muthappan and Nagarajan and the Insurance Policies, Claim Forms and Disbursement Order have been respectively marked as Exs.P6 to P13. Further he has stated in his evidence that only after ascertaining the given particulars are genuine, disbursements of money have been made due to death of cattle. 14. In the present case, the prosecution has been launched only on the basis of the role alleged to have been played by one Sundaram, who has been examined as PW2 on the side of the prosecution. He would say in his evidence that he is a septuagenarian and a freedom fighter and he knows Rajendran who has been examined as PW5 and in the year 1989, he met him and told that he received a cheque from National Insurance Company Limited as if his cow has expired. Further he stated that he has no connection whatsoever with the cheque of the National Insurance Company Limited. On the basis of his representation, he (PW2) has written a post-card to the National Insurance Company Limited and the same has been marked as Ex.P3 and subsequently he has given a complaint which has been marked as Ex.P4. During the course of cross-examination, he would say in his evidence that a strong motive has been in existence between the said Rajendran and first accused, and after knowing the fact that the said Rajendran has acted with oblique and sinister motive, he has given a letter (Ex.P4) to the National Insurance Company Limited to the effect not to take action on the basis of his complaint. Even though PW2 has requested the National Insurance Company Limited not to take any action on the basis of his complaint, the prosecution has conducted investigation and after completing the same, laid a final report on the file of the trial Court. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused have advanced their identical arguments to the effect that in the instance case, the first accused has acted as an agent of National Insurance Company Limited and only on the basis of death of some animals which have been insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, compensations have been claimed and the same have been given to the claimants and PW5 viz., Rajendran has had strong motive against the first accused and in order to entangle him in problems, he has given a false complaint against all the accused and the accused 3 & 4 have genuinely conducted post-mortem and given necessary postmortem certificates and the Insurance Officials, after knowing its genuineness, have ordered compensation and further the prosecution has failed to prove the charges framed against all the accused by way of examining relevant witnesses and the trial Court without considering the infirmities found on the side of the prosecution, has erroneously invited the conviction and sentence and therefore, the same are liable to be interfered with. 16. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases, has also vehemently contended that in the instant case, Exs.P6 to P13 have clearly spoken about the offences alleged to have been committed by all the accused and the trial Court, after contemplating all the evidence available on record, has rightly convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment under each Section mentioned in the charges and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are perfectly correct and the same need no interference. 17. It has already been pointed out that PW3 viz., Selvarajan has clearly spoken about the procedure for insuring an animal and also procedure for giving compensation. The sum and substance of the evidence given by PW3 is that only after knowing the existence of a particular animal, the same will be insured and also after knowing fully well about the death of an animal, compensation will be given. The sum and substance of the evidence given by PW3 is that only after knowing the existence of a particular animal, the same will be insured and also after knowing fully well about the death of an animal, compensation will be given. PW4 viz., Srinivasan has also given equal evidence to the effect that only after knowing the claims made in Exs.P6 to P13 are genuine, disbursement of amounts have been taken place. 18. In fact, it is not the case of the prosecution that without existence of animals in question, respective insurance claims have been made. The specific case of the prosecution is that all the accused in order to enrich themselves have entered into conspiracy to create fake post-mortem certificates in respect of animals belonged to Murugan, Marimuthu, Ramasamy, Mookaiyan, Rajendran, Paraman, Muthappan and Nagarajan. 19. Ex.P6 is related to Mookaiyan (PW14) and the concerned post-mortem certificate has been given by the fourth accused and the compensation amount has been received by the first accused. Ex.P7 is related to Muthappan (PW13) and the concerned post-mortem certificate has been given by the third accused and claim amount has been received by the second accused. Ex.P8 is related to Marimuthu (PW7) and the concerned post-mortem certificate has been given by the third accused and the claim amount has been received by the first accused. Ex.P9 is related to Murugan (PW6) and the concern post-mortem certificate has been given by the third accused and the claim amount has been received by the first accused. Ex.P10 related to Ramasamy (PW8) and the concerned post-mortem certificate has been given by the third accused and the claim amount has been received by the first accused. Ex.P11 is related to Nagarajan (A-2) and the concerned post-mortem certificate has been given by the fourth accused and the claim amount has been received by the first accused. Ex.P12 is related to R.Paraman and the concerned Post-mortem certificate has been given by the fourth accused and the claim amount has been received by the first accused. Ex.P13 is related to Rajendaran (PW5) and the concerned post-mortem certificate has been given to the fourth accused and the claim amount has been received by the first accused. 20. The trial Court has invited the conviction and sentence on the basis of Exs.P6 to P13. Ex.P13 is related to Rajendaran (PW5) and the concerned post-mortem certificate has been given to the fourth accused and the claim amount has been received by the first accused. 20. The trial Court has invited the conviction and sentence on the basis of Exs.P6 to P13. Now the Court has to perpend as to whether the conviction and sentence can be invited against the accused on the basis of Exs.P6 to P13. The claimant in Ex.P6 has been examined PW14. He would say in his evidence that he owned goats and the same have been insured. Since he has not supported the version of the prosecution, he has been treated as hostile witness. Therefore, it is quite clear that Ex.P6 is of no use so as to prove the case of the prosecution. 21. The claimant in Ex.P7 viz., Muthappan has been examined as PW13. He would say in his evidence that he has not owned any cattle. During the course of cross-examination, he would say that the first accused has acted as a treasurer in Milk Society and in the said milk society, he run a tea stall and further he would say in his evidence that in Ex.P22 it is stated that the father name of the claimant is Ramasamy Counder and he has no connection to it. It is not the evidence of PW13 that he owned a cattle and the same has been insured and a false insurance claim has been made. Therefore, the evidence of PW13 is also of no use so as to prove the case of the prosecution. 22. The claimant in Ex.P8 viz., Marimuthu has been examined as PW7. He has stated in his evidence that he owned a buffalo and the same has passed away and he claimed compensation and compensation amount belongs to him. From the evidence of PW7, it is quite clear that the claim made in respect of death of his cattle is genuine. 23. The claimant in Ex.P9 viz., Murugan has been examined as PW6. He would say in his evidence that he has not owned any cattle and he has also not claimed any compensation. It is not the evidence of PW6 that he owned an animal and the same has been insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the same has not passed away. He would say in his evidence that he has not owned any cattle and he has also not claimed any compensation. It is not the evidence of PW6 that he owned an animal and the same has been insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the same has not passed away. Therefore, the evidence of PW6 has also not at all lent support to the case of the prosecution. 24. At this juncture, the following aspects must be noted down. From the evidence of PW6, the Court can easily discern that father name of PW6 is Vasakar. But, from the close reading of Ex.P9 would reveal that the father name of Murugan mentioned in Ex.P9 is Vellaiyappan. Therefore, PW6 is an utter stranger and he has no connection whatsoever with Ex.P9. But, the prosecution has examined PW6 for the reasons best known to it. The attempt made by the prosecution is highly deplorable and also condemnable. 25. The claimant in Ex.P10 viz., Ramasamy has been examined as PW8. He has also stated in his evidence that he insured four buffaloes in the National Insurance Company Limited and one has passed away and subsequently he claimed compensation and therefore, the evidence of PW8 is totally contra to the contention urged on the side of the prosecution. 26. The claimant in Ex.P11 viz., N.Nagarajan and the claimant in Ex.P12 viz., R.Paraman have not been examined on the side of the prosecution. 27. The claimant in Ex.P13, S.Rajendaran has been examined as PW5. He would say in his evidence that the signature found in Ex.P13 is not his signature and he has not owned cattle at any point of time and the second accused has met him and directed him to handover if any letter received by him from the Insurance Company and the first accused has given one cheque and the same has been put in his account and further he would say in his evidence that the amount found in the cheque which has been given in his name has been credited in his account and he has not withdrawn the same. 28. The trial Court has believed the evidence of PW5. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into the entire evidence adduced by PW5. 28. The trial Court has believed the evidence of PW5. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into the entire evidence adduced by PW5. In fact, this Court has closely perused the entire evidence adduced by him and during the course of cross-examination he would say that the accused 1 & 2 are his brothers-in-law. He married one Uthayarani who is the daughter of Sennappa Counder, senior paternal uncle of the accused 1 & 2 and their marriage has been held in the year 1980 and subsequently he divorced her and conducted second marriage and his mother has been murdered and a criminal case is pending against his wife Uthayarani and others. The said Uthayarani has also instituted a criminal case against him, his father and brother. The accused 1 & 2 are lending their support to the said Uthayarani and due to that a despair is in existence between him and the accused 1 & 2. Therefore, from the evidence of PW5, the Court can easily learn that PW5 is having strong enmity against the accused 1 & 2. If really PW5 has not at all insured his cattle, if really the same has not passed away, definitely, he would not have accepted the cheque given in respect of the claim alleged to have been made by him. Therefore, the evidence of PW5 cannot be believed in. Further PW2 has stated in his evidence that PW5 has reported that he received a cheque from the National Insurance Company Limited and the same has been given on false claim and on the basis of his representation, he (PW2) has given a complaint and subsequently after knowing the evil design of PW5, he (PW2) has sent another requisition to the National Insurance Company Limited to the effect not to take action on the basis of his complaint. Therefore, it is quite clear that PW5 is the harbinger to initiate present criminal proceedings against all the accused. 29. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that some of the post-mortem certificates alleged to have been issued by the accused 3 & 4 are not genuine. In fact, this Court has closely perused all the post-mortem certificates issued by the accused 3 & 4. Except some flimsy mistake, no stupendous mistakes are found in the post-mortem certificates issued by the accused 3 & 4. In fact, this Court has closely perused all the post-mortem certificates issued by the accused 3 & 4. Except some flimsy mistake, no stupendous mistakes are found in the post-mortem certificates issued by the accused 3 & 4. Even at the risk of jarring repetition, the Court would like to point out that it is not the case of the prosecution that the animals, which are not in existence, have been insured with the National Insurance Company Limited. The specific case of the prosecution is that the accused 1 to 4 have conspired together so as to enrich themselves and in pursuance of their conspiracy, they created fake postmortem certificates as if the animals of the persons mentioned have expired. In fact, this Court has discussed Exs.P6 to P13 in detail and found that some of the claimants have admitted their claims and some of the claimants have not at all been examined on the side of the prosecution. Therefore, on the basis of some flimsy mistakes found in some post-mortem certificates, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the accused have committed offences mentioned in the charges. 30. It has already been pointed out that PW3 viz., Selvarajan has clearly spoken about the requisite procedure for making insurance of a particular animal and further he has stated in his evidence about the procedure to be adopted for giving compensation and only after ascertaining the claim as genuine, compensation would be given. Further he would say in his evidence that if there is no doubt in the claim, the same would be sanctioned. PW4, Srinivasan would say that only after ascertaining the claims made in Exs.P6 to P13 are genuine, compensation amounts have been disbursed. From the evidence of PWs.3 & 4, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that the claims made in the present case are genuine. 31. The trial Court as adverted to earlier has invited its conviction and sentence mainly on the basis of the evidence given by PW5 viz., Rajendran and also some flimsy mistakes found in some postmortem certificates. It has already been pointed out that some of the claimants have not at all supported the version of the prosecution and some of them have not been examined on the side of the prosecution. It has already been pointed out that some of the claimants have not at all supported the version of the prosecution and some of them have not been examined on the side of the prosecution. Further PW6 has had no connection whatsoever with Ex.P9 and the prosecution has examined him for the reasons best known to it. Therefore, it is quite clear that the prosecution has not adduced trustworthy and also adminicle evidence in the present case so as to mulct the accused with punishments. The trial Court has invited the conviction and sentence only on the basis of fiction, surmise and conjecture. It is an everlasting principle of law that in a criminal case unless adminicle, cogent and trustworthy evidence are available, it is highly impossible on the part of the Court to invite conviction and sentence against the accused concerned. Further conviction and sentence cannot be invited on the basis of mere presumption, surmise and conjecture. Therefore, the approach made by the trial Court is totally incorrect. Under the said circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused are really having subsisting force and whereas the argument advanced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases is sans merit. 32. It has already been pointed out that the trial Court has invited conviction and sentence against the accused 3 & 4 under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is an admitted fact that no specific charge has been framed against the accused 3 & 4 under the said Sections. Even though specific charge has not been framed against the accused 3 & 4 under the said Sections, the trial Court has invited conviction and sentence against them under the said Sections. On that score also the approach made by the trial Court is totally against law. 33. It has already been pointed out that the prosecution has not at all established the guilt of each and every accused under the Sections found in the charges and the trial Court has invited conviction and sentence merely on the basis of surmise and conjecture, and therefore, the entire conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside and altogether, the present criminal appeals can be allowed. 34. 34. In fine, the present criminal appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants/accused in Calendar Case No.2 of 1995 by the Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai are set aside and the appellants/accused are acquitted of the charges. Bail bonds executed by them shall stand cancelled and the fine amounts paid by them are ordered to be refunded forthwith.