Judgment :- The appellant, who figured as accused No.2 in S.C.No.164/2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai was prosecuted along with two other persons, namely Saravanan (A1) and Palani (A3) for alleged offences punishable under Sections 364, 382, 302 and 468 IPC. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found A1 and A3 not guilty of any one of the offences with which they stood charged and acquitted them completely. However, the trial court found the appellant (A2) guilty of an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC, a lesser offence than the one under section 382 IPC with which he stood charged as per charge No.1 and of an offence punishable under section 468 IPC for which he stood charged as per charge No.3 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 411 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence under Section 468 IPC with a default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine. The learned trial judge also directed collection of the fine amount and payment of the same to P.W.1 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the appellant (A2) has come forward with the present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C on various grounds set out in the appeal petition. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- i) The deceased Sivasamy, husband of P.W.1 was a taxi driver by profession. He had been issued a driving license under Ex.P3. At the relevant point of time late Sivasamy was functioning as the driver of an Ambassador car (taxi) belonging to P.W.2-Varadhavelu bearing Regn.No.TSL 9357. The said Sivasamy, who left his home on 07.08.1997 in connection with his job as taxi driver, did not return thereafter. Having waited in vain for about five days in the hope that he would return, his wife Muthulakshmi (P.W.1) lodged a complaint, marked as Ex.P1, on the file of Arani Town Police Station on 13.08.1997. P.W.29-Gopal, the then Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the said police station, received the said complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.300/1997 as a man missing case, for which Ex.P2-First Information Report was prepared by him. P.W.29-Gopal, the then Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the said police station, received the said complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.300/1997 as a man missing case, for which Ex.P2-First Information Report was prepared by him. P.W.2, the employer of deceased Sivasamy had already lodged a complaint on 11.08.1997 under Ex.P4 on the file of Arani Town Police Station informing the police that his car along with the driver was missing. The said complaint was received in the police station on 11.08.1997 at about 20.30 Hours. The police, without registering a First Information Report based on the said complaint of P.W.2, assigned it C.S.R.No.177/1997. ii) Meanwhile, on 08.08.1997 at about 11.00 a.m P.W.12-Tamilnesan, the then Village Administrative Officer of Manjavadi village, received an information that a dead body of a male was found near the field of one Muthusamy on the east of Arani-Harur-Salem Road in between Kombur and Vellaiappan temple. On receipt of such an information, he rushed to the spot with his village menial, saw the dead body and then lodged a written complaint under Ex.P7 on the very same day at about 14.00 Hours on the file of Pappireddipatti Police Station. P.W.25-Ramasamy, a Head Constable attached to the said police station, registered a case in Cr.No.466/1997 under Section 174 Cr.P.C based on the said complaint of the Village Administrative Officer. Ex.P8 is the First Information Report prepared by him for the said purpose. P.W.19-Abdul Jaffar, the then Inspector of Police, Pappireddipatti Police Station took up the said case for investigation, visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P9-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P30-Rough sketch in the presence of P.W.12-Village Administrative Officer and one Krishnan, village menial. He also conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared Ex.P31-Inquest Report. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Harur for autopsy along with Ex.P14-requisition letter for the said purpose through P.W.18-Manokaran, Grade-I police constable. P.W.15-Dr.Jayaraman, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Harur, conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P15-Postmortem certificate. As per the requisition of the Investigating Officer, viscera and the skin around the neck were sent to the Forensic Laboratory for medical analysis along with Ex.P31-letter of requisition of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur. P.W.15-Dr.Jayaraman, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Harur, conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P15-Postmortem certificate. As per the requisition of the Investigating Officer, viscera and the skin around the neck were sent to the Forensic Laboratory for medical analysis along with Ex.P31-letter of requisition of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur. After receiving the Medical Analysis Report and Bone Case Report under Exs.P16 and P17, P.W.19-Medical Officer gave his opinion that the deceased appeared to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation between 40 to 46 Hours prior to autopsy. iii) The dead body was buried after photographs of the same were taken in three angles for future identification as there was no one capable of identity the deceased. The said photographs and their negatives are marked as M.O.1 series and M.O.6 series respectively. Meanwhile, P.W.29, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Arani Town Police Station, who was conducting the initial investigation in Cr.No.300/1997 (man missing case) received information from Pappireddipatti Police Station regarding the registration of the case in the said Police Station in Cr.No.466/1997 and upon such receipt of the information, he sent P.W.1-Muthulakshmi along with police to Pappireddipatti Police Station for the purpose of identification of the deceased. P.W.1, on such instructions from P.W.29, went to Pappireddipatti Police Station on 24.09.1997 along with her father and other relatives and identified the deceased to be her husband with the help of the photographs marked as M.O.1 series and the dress materials, namely M.O.2-Shirt, M.O.3-Banian and M.O.4-Jatti. On receipt of the information that the deceased was identified by P.W.1 to be her husband, P.W.29 placed the CD file for the perusal of P.W.27-Venkatachalam, the then Inspector of Police, Arani, who took up the further investigation of the cases. The case registered on the file of Pappireddipatti Police Station as Cr.No.466/1997 was also transferred along with the records to the file of Arani Town Police Station for being investigated along with Cr.No.300/1997 registered on the file of Arani Town Police Station. P.W.28-G.Gothandan, the then Inspector of Police, Arani Town Police Station clubbed the transferred case, namely Cr.No.466/1997 (Pappireddipatti Police Station) with Cr.No.300/1997 (Arani Town Police Station), altered the case from man missing to a case for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 302 IPC and submitted an alteration report under Ex.P24. P.W.28-G.Gothandan, the then Inspector of Police, Arani Town Police Station clubbed the transferred case, namely Cr.No.466/1997 (Pappireddipatti Police Station) with Cr.No.300/1997 (Arani Town Police Station), altered the case from man missing to a case for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 302 IPC and submitted an alteration report under Ex.P24. During the course of investigation, based on the information received by him, PW 28 arrested all the three accused on 12.07.1998 at about 2.00 p.m near Kamaraj statue at Aranipalayam on the Arani-Vellore Road and recorded the confession statement of A1-Saravanan in the presence of witnesses Rajan and one Sridhar, the admissible portion of which has been marked as Ex.P5. Based on the said confession statement, P.W.28 recovered M.O.5-Ambassador car, in which the Regn. No.TSC 556 had been displayed in the number plate, under Ex.P6 - Mahazar pursuant to the identification of the said car by A1Saravanan to be the car stolen from the deceased. As P.W.28 was thereafter transferred from Arani Town Police Station, P.W.29, who had by then been promoted as Inspector of Police came to be posted to Arani Town Police Station whereupon he again took up further investigation of the case. The car was also sent for analysis by a forensic expert, based on the requisition of the Investigating Officer marked as Ex.P21. P.W.24, the Scientific Assistant Gr.I, Department of Forensic Sciences, Chennai, after examination of the car submitted a report containing the following findings:- We have examined the above detailed car and our conclusions are hereunder:- 1. The word "ANAND" was found underneath the sticker "Radiating Vigour..." pasted on the rear wind screen glass of the car. 2. The region of the car where the original chassis number is punched was found cut and removed and a metal piece bearing the present number "111-373968" was substituted by welding; Hence, the original chassis number of the car could not be found. 3. No number other than the present number "D 268920" is found on the engine identification plate rivetted to the engine. Please note that the engine identification plate rivetted to the engine was removed for examination and packed separately under this office seal. iv) The skin removed from the neck of the dead body was examined by P.W.16-Dr.Vallinayagam, Professor (Forensic Science Medicine), Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College and Hospital, Salem in accordance with Ex.P16-requisition of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur. Please note that the engine identification plate rivetted to the engine was removed for examination and packed separately under this office seal. iv) The skin removed from the neck of the dead body was examined by P.W.16-Dr.Vallinayagam, Professor (Forensic Science Medicine), Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College and Hospital, Salem in accordance with Ex.P16-requisition of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur. Based on the findings of the examination, PW16 issued a certificate under Ex.P17 certifying that the injuries found therein were antemortem. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer found that all the three accused persons, with the common intention of committing theft and of comitting the murder of the deceased in order to commit theft of the car bearing Regn. No.TSL 9357, engaged the said car plied as a taxi from the taxi stand at Arani old Bus Stand in Arani town on 07.08.1997 at about 3.00 p.m under the pretext of going to Salem and other places for collection of business dues and thereby abducted the deceased Sivasamy in order to murder him; that in the course of the same transaction at about 11.00 p.m on the same day in between Kombur village and Velliappan temple on the Arani-Harur-Salem main road, the deceased Sivasamy was killed by A1-Saravanan by strangulation while A2-Selvam (appellant herein) and A3Palani tightly held the hands and legs of the deceased respectively and facilitated the commission of murder by A.Saravanan; that after causing the death of the deceased Sivasamy, all the accused committed theft of the Ambassador car bearing Regn. No.TSL 9357; that all the three accused persons forged the chassis and engine numbers by cutting and removing them and substituting a number of another car which had been condemned and that they also replaced the original Registration Certificate of the said stolen car with the Registration Certificate of another car. On the strength of the materials collected during the course of investigation, P.W.28, submitted a final report alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 364, 368 and 382 IPC by all the three accused persons, an offence punishable 302 IPC by A1-Saravanan and an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 109, 114 and 34 IPC by A2, the appellant herein and A3-Palani. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Arani took the final report on file as P.R.C.No.19/2000 and after following the procedure, committed the accused for trial to the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Arani took the final report on file as P.R.C.No.19/2000 and after following the procedure, committed the accused for trial to the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai. The same was taken on file as S.C.No.164/2001 in the Sessions division of Thiruvannamalai and made over to the Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai for disposal according to law. 4. In the trial court, charges were framed against all the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 364, 382, 302 and 468 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and wanted the case to be tried. In the trial that followed such a plea, the prosecution examined 30 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 30, marked Ex.P1 to P35 and produced M.Os.1 to 7 on its side in order to prove the charges against the accused persons. After recording of the evidence for the prosecution was over, the accused persons were examined under Section 313(1) (b) regarding the incriminating materials found in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. They denied such evidence to be false and once again reiterated their stand that they were not guilty of any offence. No witness was examined and no document was marked and no material object was produced on the side of the accused persons. 5. The learned trial judge heard the arguments advanced on either side, considered the evidence in the light of such arguments and upon such consideration, came to the conclusion that the accused 1 and 3 were not guilty of any of the offences with which they stood charged and hence acquitted them of all the charges by judgment dated 31.05.2002 The appellant herein (A2) was also not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 IPC. However, the trial court held him guilty of an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC (lesser offence than the offence under Section 382 IPC with which he stood charged), convicted him for the said offences and awarded sentences as indicated supra. 6. Aggrieved by and challenging the conviction recorded and the sentences imposed, the appellant (A2) has come forward with the present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C on various grounds set out in the appeal petition. 7. 6. Aggrieved by and challenging the conviction recorded and the sentences imposed, the appellant (A2) has come forward with the present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C on various grounds set out in the appeal petition. 7. Mr.L.Mahendran, learned counsel for the appellant advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant contended that the judgment of the trial court was against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the court below ought to have acquitted the appellant also holding the prosecution to have failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the court below having acquitted A1 and A3, committed a grave error in convicting the appellant based on the same evidence; that the court below having disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3 for holding the appellant not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, ought not to have convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 411 and 468 IPC; that the evidence of the prosecution regarding the substitution of the RC book for the car is found with lot of improbabilities and contradictions; that the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 22 are in the nature of depositions of accomplice and the acceptance of their evidence without any corroboration was bad in law; that the court below ought to have held that there was no corroboration for the evidence of P.Ws.9, 20, 21 and 22 and that the court below ought to have held that the appellant (A2) to be the bonafide purchaser of car from P.W.9 and acquitted him. 8. 8. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the court below having held that none of the accused committed the offence of theft of the vehicle, erred in convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 411 IPC; that the conviction of the appellant without there being any specific charge of receiving stolen property under Section 411 is also against law; that the very approach made by the learned trial judge would suggest that the learned trial judge searched for points for recording a conviction at least on one or two of the charges alone even though the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution was not enough to prove any one of the charges beyond reasonable doubt; that the finding of the court below holding the appellant (A2) guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 411 and 468 IPC, can even be termed perverse and that hence the conviction recorded and sentence imposed for offences under Sections 411 and 468 IPC should be set aside by this court in exercise of its appellate powers. 9. Per contra, Mr.R.Muniapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), representing the respondent, argued that the court below, on a proper appreciation of evidence, came to the correct conclusion that the appellant herein (A2) was guilty of offences punishable under Sections 411 and 468 IPC; that the said finding could not be said to be erroneous, much less perverse; that there was no scope for interference with the well considered judgment convicting the appellant and that hence the appeal should be dismissed as having no merit in it. 10. This court took into consideration the rival submissions made on either side and also perused the entire materials available on record. 11. The appellant herein, along with two other persons, was prosecuted before the trial court for alleged offences punishable under Sections 364, 382, 302 and 468 IPC. According to the prosecution theory, all the three accused, with a common intention of stealing the Ambassador car (taxi) bearing Regn. 11. The appellant herein, along with two other persons, was prosecuted before the trial court for alleged offences punishable under Sections 364, 382, 302 and 468 IPC. According to the prosecution theory, all the three accused, with a common intention of stealing the Ambassador car (taxi) bearing Regn. No.TSL 9357 of which the deceased Sivasamy was the driver, engaged the said taxi at the taxi stand near old Bus Stand of Arani Town on 07.08.1997 at about 3.00 p.m on the pretext of going to Salem and other places for collecting business dues, travelled in the said taxi and on the way from Arani to Harur in between Kombur and Vellaiappan temple, all of them jointly murdered the said Sivasamy and thereafter committed theft of the above said car. 12. It is the further case of the prosecution that, after committing the offence of the murder and committing theft of the car, they removed the original engine number and chassis number and affixed the engine and chassis numbers of another car, which had been condemned, dismantled and sold as scraps and used the said car with the number plate displaying the registration number of the said dismantled car. After analysing the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced on the side of the prosecution, the learned trial judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution theory of the accused persons including the appellant herein, abducting the deceased with the intention to kill him and commit theft of the car was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Judge also hold that the charges of murder and theft pursuant to the abduction were not proved to the hilt beyond reasonable doubt and hence held all the three accused persons including the appellant were not guilty of any one of the offences of abduction punishable under Section 364 and murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. As against the acquittal of the other two persons, namely A1 and A3 in respect of the offences with which they stood charged and as against the acquittal of the appellant herein (A2) in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 IPC, the State has not preferred any appeal. No revision has also been preferred. Therefore, the acquittal of the accused, including the appellant herein, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 has become final. No revision has also been preferred. Therefore, the acquittal of the accused, including the appellant herein, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 has become final. In the light of the same, the sustainability of the conviction recorded against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 411 and 468 IPC and punishment imposed thereon has to be considered. 13.The offences for which the appellant (A2) was convicted are 1) dishonestly receiving stolen property punishable under Section 411 IPC and 2) forgery for the purpose of cheating punishable under Section 468 IPC. It should be kept in mind, while approaching the problem, that there was no separate charge framed by the trial court against the appellant herein for an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. No alteration of the charge was made even before pronouncement of judgment. The appellant was prosecuted for having committed theft after making arrangement to cause the death of Sivasamy in order to commit the theft punishable under Section 382 IPC. Section 382 IPC reads as follows:- "382. Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft.— Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or of restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 14. The case of the prosecution is that all the three accused persons including the appellant herein jointly made preparations for causing the death of the driver of the Ambassador car (taxi) bearing Regn. No.TSL 9357 in order to commit of the theft of the said car and that is why all of them were prosecuted for the offence under Section 382 IPC. The theory of the prosecution that the accused persons, including the appellant herein, with the common intention of causing death of the taxi driver and committing theft of the taxi bearing Regn. The theory of the prosecution that the accused persons, including the appellant herein, with the common intention of causing death of the taxi driver and committing theft of the taxi bearing Regn. No.TSL 9357, abducted him in the said car in the guise of going to Salem and other places for collecting business dues and that they killed the driver on their way to Harur from Arani and committed theft of the said car, has been disbelieved by the learned trial judge or at least held to be not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. When the trial court held that the charge for an offence of theft after having made preparation for causing death etc., was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no scope for the trial court to convict the appellant for an altogether different offence, namely an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC without there being a separate and specific charge framed for such an offence. Apart from the fact that there was no charge framed for an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and the appellant in the strict sense was not prosecuted for an offence of receiving stolen goods punishable under Section 411 IPC, there are other materials to show that the prosecution has not brought home the offence by sufficient evidence without there being any room for reasonable suspicion. 15. For sustaining a conviction for an offence under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution can very well rely on Section 114 illustration a of the Evidence Act to raise a presumption that the goods alleged to be stolen found in possession of the accused, who fails to furnish any explanation for such possession, that he had received it or retained it dishonestly knowing or having reason to believe the same to be a stolen property. But there can be no presumption that the property itself is a stolen one. To warrant such a presumption and to sustain a conviction for an offence under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the same is a stolen property. In this case, the car produced as M.O.5 is said to be the stolen property. But there can be no presumption that the property itself is a stolen one. To warrant such a presumption and to sustain a conviction for an offence under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the same is a stolen property. In this case, the car produced as M.O.5 is said to be the stolen property. According to the prosecution case, P.W.2-Varadhavelu was the owner of the said car and the same was stolen by all the three accused persons after committing murder of Sivasamy, driver of the said car which was used as a taxi. The theory of murder and theft by the accused persons was disbelieved by the court below. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration shall be, "whether M.O.5-Car was that of P.W.2? Whether the same was found in the possession of the appellant (A2)? Whether the appellant (A2) was not in a position to offer any explanation for such possession. 16. First of all, M.O.5 should have been proved to be the car belonging to P.W.2-Varadhavelu to sustain the conviction of the appellant for having received it knowing or having reason to believe that the same was a stolen property. It is the case of the prosecution that the registration number of the car belonging to P.W.2 is TSL-9357 and that it was an Ambassador car used with T board as taxi. At the time of alleged recovery of the car by the police it was not having the number plate displaying the above said registration number. On the other hand, according to the prosecution case, it was with a number plate displaying the registration number TSC-556. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the vehicle was identified to be that of P.W.2 with the help of either the chassis number or the engine number found in the vehicle. The theory of the prosecution as to how they were able to find out that M.O.5 was the stolen car belonging to P.W.2, is more dramatic making it hard to believe. The theory of the prosecution as to how they were able to find out that M.O.5 was the stolen car belonging to P.W.2, is more dramatic making it hard to believe. The prosecution has introduced P.W.7-Perumal as the person having a car mechanic shed at Arani to depose to the effect that one year after the occurrence, the appellant along with one Sekar(whose name was not known to PW7), came to the mechanic shed of P.W.7 and informed him that a car which had broken down, had to be towed to the mechanic shed; that P.W.7 informed the appellant and the others to tow the car to his mechanic shed; that the said car was brought to his mechanic shed on the same day during evening hours; that he had serviced the said car earlier when one Anandan happened to be its owner; that the said Anandan came to his mechanic shed and identified the car to be the one which he had sold to P.W.2 and that he came to know that the said car was that of Anandan when he started the car using the extra key he had brought. 17. It is pertinent to note that even after such identification by Anandan, P.W.7 did not inform the police. During cross-examination, P.W.1 also admitted that when M.O.5 car was recovered by the police from his mechanic shed he was not sure as to whether the said car was the one purchased by P.W.2 from Anandan. The in-built contradiction found in the evidence of P.W.7 will make his testimony unreliable and unbelievable. It is not the evidence of P.W.7 that it was he who informed the police about the fact that the said car had been brought to his mechanic shed for repair works. The date on which M.O.5 car was brought to his mechanic shed and the date on which the taxi drivers and Anandan came to his mechanic shed and informed him that the same was the car missing, have not been furnished by P.W.7 in his evidence. According to his testimony three days after Anandan informed him that the said car was the one missing, police came to his mechanic shed along with all the three persons accused and recovered the car from the mechanic shed. According to his testimony three days after Anandan informed him that the said car was the one missing, police came to his mechanic shed along with all the three persons accused and recovered the car from the mechanic shed. However, his evidence in cross-examination is to the effect that the police came to his mechanic shed on the very same day on which Anandan came there and informed him, after testing the car with the key brought by him, that the said car was the one missing. At one place he said three days after such identification by Anandan police came and recovered the vehicle. At another place, he said that on the very same date on which Anandan identified the vehicle to be the one missing, police came there and asked him who brought the vehicle to the mechanic shed. It is the evidence of the Investigating Officer, namely P.W.28, that the availability of the car in the mechanic shed of P.W.7 came to his knowledge only from the confession statement of A1-Saravanan allegedly recorded on 12.07.1998 at 2.00 p.m. It is the further testimony of P.W.28 that M.O.5 car was recovered under Ex.P6-Mahazar on the very same day at 3.45 p.m. But, P.W.7, in his testimony, at one place would say that before ever they brought the accused the police along with one Sekar, who figured as the attestor came there asked him who brought the vehicle to the mechanic shed for which he informed the police that the accused persons brought it to his mechanic shed and that thereafter, the police brought the accused to the mechanic shed. At another place he would state that the police people came to the mechanic shed for the first time 2 or 3 days after the car had been towed to the mechanic shed for effecting repairs. 18. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of arrest of accused, namely 12.07.1998 itself the vehicle was recovered from the mechanic shed of P.W.7 and taken to the police station. 18. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of arrest of accused, namely 12.07.1998 itself the vehicle was recovered from the mechanic shed of P.W.7 and taken to the police station. It is the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.28) that he went to the mechanic shed only after the arrest of the accused persons and pursuant to the information furnished by the first accused (Saravanan), the admissible portion of which has been marked as Ex.P5 the vehicle was recovered and taken to the police station as per Ex.P6 on the very same day. But the following admissions made by P.W.7 would make improbable the theory of recovery of the car under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is his evidence that after inspection by the police, they informed him not to effect delivery of the vehicle without the knowledge of the police; that P.W.2-Varadhavelu purchased and supplied the spare parts for effecting repairs and that it took one week time for effecting delivery after repair. His earlier version was that within 2 or 3 days after the car was brought to his mechanic shed for repair, police came there. According to the Investigating Officer, he went there on 12.07.1998. The further evidence of P.W.7 shows that it took a weeks time for him to complete the repair works and effect delivery. The same will improbablise the case of the police that the vehicle was recovered on the date on which the police went to the mechanic shed along with the accused and saw it. Therefore, the theory of confession statement leading to recovery of M.O.5 has got to be disbelieved. 19. It is not the evidence of P.W.2 that he went to the mechanic shed of P.W.7 and saw the car before ever the car was seized and taken to the police station. It is also not the evidence of P.W.2 that it was he who purchased and supplied the spare parts for effecting repairs. On the other hand, it is his evidence that he was informed by the police that the vehicle had been recovered by the police and kept in Arani Town police station and that after receiving such information from the police he went to the police station and identified the car to be his. On the other hand, it is his evidence that he was informed by the police that the vehicle had been recovered by the police and kept in Arani Town police station and that after receiving such information from the police he went to the police station and identified the car to be his. It is his further evidence that he saw the car at the police station which was not in a running condition and that he effected repairs with the help of a mechanic when the car was in the police station and took it from the police station in accordance with the instructions of the Inspector of Police. His evidence is to the effect that he applied before the court, got an order for interim custody and thereafter took the car from the police station after effecting repairs employing a mechanic and that the repair works were carried out in the police station itself. 20. The theory of identification and recovery falls to the ground when it is considered in the light of the contradictions found in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.7. According to the evidence of P.W.2 it was a white colour car when it was with him and his vendor Anandan. On the other hand, it is the evidence of P.W.7 that it was of sandal colour when the car was with Anandan initially and subsequently with P.W.2-Varadhavelu and that only after the car had gone into the hands of the accused, the colour had been changed from sandal colour to white colour. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the vehicle could not have been identified based on the colour of the vehicle. The RC book of the vehicle belonging to P.W.2 bearing Regn. No.TSL 9357 has been produced and marked on the side of the prosecution as Ex.P35. The evidence of P.W.2 as to whether the same was handed over to the Investigating Officer is self-contradictory. P.W.2, in his cross-examination did state that during the course of investigation he handed over the RC book to the police in accordance with their demand. However, in the latter part of his evidence, he stated that he did not hand over the RC book during investigation and that he surrendered the RC book in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Arani when he got the interim custody of the vehicle. 21. However, in the latter part of his evidence, he stated that he did not hand over the RC book during investigation and that he surrendered the RC book in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Arani when he got the interim custody of the vehicle. 21. According to the evidence of P.W.7 -Perumal, police came to his mechanic shed after two or three days from the date on which M.O.5-car was brought to his shed for repair works. P.W.6 - Sekar is said to be the person who towed M.O.5-car to the above said mechanic shed. According to his testimony, he along with Venugopal and Murugan and the appellant went to Sethupattu at the request of the appellant and towed the car, using their car, to P.W.7s mechanic shed. The registration number of the car which was used for towing M.O.5 - car has not been furnished by P.W.6 or any other witness examined on the side of the prosecution. It is the evidence of P.W.6 that he left Arani on the date on which M.O.5 - car had been entrusted with P.W.7 at his mechanic shed and returned to Arani only after a week. It is also his evidence that since he was not in the station for a week from the date of entrustment of the car to P.W.7 for effecting repairs, he did not inform the police. It is the assertion of P.W.6 that he was not in the station (Arani) for a weeks time from the date of entrustment of M.O.5-car to P.W.7. P.W.7s evidence is to the effect that after two or three days from the date on which M.O.5-car was entrusted to him for repair works at his mechanic shed, police came to the mechanic shed and queried him as to the person who entrusted the car for repair works and that he replied that the accused persons had done it. It is his further evidence that P.W.6-Sekar also came there accompanying the police when the police came to his mechanic shed. When P.W.6 states that he was not in the station for a week from the date of entrustment of the car with P.W.7 for repair works, it is highly improbable that he would have accompanied the police who came to the shed within two or three days there after. When P.W.6 states that he was not in the station for a week from the date of entrustment of the car with P.W.7 for repair works, it is highly improbable that he would have accompanied the police who came to the shed within two or three days there after. P.W.6 did not assert that he accompanied the police to the mechanic shed of P.W.7 when the police visited the same. It is his simple statement that he later on received the information that police had arrested the accused persons and that only thereafter police summoned him whereupon he furnished the information known to him. 22. The prosecution has introduced P.W.8-Anandan as the person through whom P.W.7 and others came to know that M.O.5 car was the one belonging to Varadhavelu bearing Regn.No.TSL 9357. According to the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7 and 8, on being informed that a car with a number plate displaying Regn. No.TSC 556 was available in the mechanic shed of P.W.7 and that there was a suspicion that the car could be the missing car of which the deceased Sivasamy was the driver, P.W.8 went to the mechanic shed with a duplicate key available with him, opened the car with the help of the duplicate key and then found out the said car to be the one he had sold to Varadhavelu-P.W.2. The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 are to the effect that they were very much aware of the fact that the said car bearing Regn. No.TSL 9357 once owned by P.W.8-Anandan had been sold to P.W.2-Varadhavelu long back and the said car was found missing for about a year before M.O.5 car was brought to P.W.7s mechanic shed for repair works. In such circumstances, it would have been quite natural and probable if they had informed P.W.2-Varadhavelu to come and inspect the car and verify whether the same was his car that was missing. But, according to their evidence, P.W.8-Anandan, the previous owner of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TSL 9357 was informed and on such information he came to the mechanic shed and identified the vehicle to be the one he had sold to P.W.2-Varadhavelu. It is quite improbable that P.W.8, who had sold the car more than one year earlier, could have retained the duplicate key with him. No.TSL 9357 was informed and on such information he came to the mechanic shed and identified the vehicle to be the one he had sold to P.W.2-Varadhavelu. It is quite improbable that P.W.8, who had sold the car more than one year earlier, could have retained the duplicate key with him. When the police relied on the identification of the car by P.W.8, who was able to do it, according to the prosecution version, because the duplicate key he had with him correctly fitted to the car, it shall be natural for the police to recover the key also when the car was seized. But, P.W.8 says that though he demonstrated the car to be the one he owned and sold to Varadhavelu by starting the car with the extra key available with him, the police did not ask him to hand over the key to them and hence he did not hand over the key to the police. 23. It is the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8 that the car bearing Regn. No.TSL 9357 was of sandal colour when the same was with P.W.8-Anandan and then with P.W.2-Varadhavelu and that the colour of the car had been changed to white when the car was with the appellant/second accused. But the evidence of P.W.2 seems to be some what contradictory to the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8. It is not his evidence that the colour of the car had been changed subsequent to the date of occurrence. On the other hand, it is his evidence that his car was a white Ambassador car; that he had purchased and fitted four new tyres and that with the help of the same and with the help of the sticker mark bearing the name Anandan, he was able to identify the car to be his. In view of the said contradiction also, there arises a strong suspicion regarding the prosecution version as to the identification of the vehicle. In this regard, the police officer who allegedly recovered M.O.5-car under Ex.P6-Mahazar, has given a totally different version. According to his evidence, at the time of theft the car had been painted in white and the car was of the very same colour when he recovered it under Ex.P6-mahazar. 24. In this regard, the police officer who allegedly recovered M.O.5-car under Ex.P6-Mahazar, has given a totally different version. According to his evidence, at the time of theft the car had been painted in white and the car was of the very same colour when he recovered it under Ex.P6-mahazar. 24. It is quite surprising that no one out of the witnesses P.Ws.6 to 8 chose to inform P.W.2-Varadhavelu after the alleged identification of the vehicle by P.W.8. There is a vital contradiction as to whether the vehicle had been repaired and brought to a roadworthy condition before police seized and brought it to the police station. P.W.7 would state in his evidence that he had effected repairs and kept the car ready and only thereafter the police came to the mechanic shed and recovered the car. But the evidence of P.W.2 is quite contrary to the said evidence of P.W.7. According to P.W.2, when the car was in the police station it was not in a running condition and after getting order from the court for interim custody of the car, he get the car repaired by a mechanic and then took the car from the police station. Apart from the said contradiction, there is yet another version which was indicated earlier. P.W.7 himself, in his later part of his deposition, stated that the police, after confirming that the car was the one stolen, simply left the car to be in the mechanic shed of P.W.7 with instructions to him not to effect delivery of the car to anybody without informing the police and that he effected repairs for which P.W.2 provided the funds and supplied the spare parts. The said part of his evidence is to the effect that without the vehicle being taken to the police station, the same was repaired and handed over to P.W.2. The three contradictory versions in this regard will make the prosecution case regarding identification of the vehicle improbable and surrounded with reasonable suspicion. 25. The other characteristics with which the car was allegedly identified to be that of P.W.2 bearing Regn. No.TSL 9357, according to the prosecution case, is the sticker mark depicting the name of the previous owner, namely P.W.8-Anandan found on the rear wind screen even after the removal of the sticker. 25. The other characteristics with which the car was allegedly identified to be that of P.W.2 bearing Regn. No.TSL 9357, according to the prosecution case, is the sticker mark depicting the name of the previous owner, namely P.W.8-Anandan found on the rear wind screen even after the removal of the sticker. According to the evidence of P.W.7, he came to note that the said car was the one previously owned by P.W.8-Anandan and subsequently owned by P.W.2-Varadhavelu, simply because P.W.8-Anandan was able to open the car and start the same with the help of the extra key that was available with him. He has not spoken anything about the sticker bearing the name of Anandan (P.W.8). It is also not the evidence of P.W.7 that the sticker mark of the name Anandan was found on the rear wind screen, with the help of which he was able to identify the said car to be that of P.W.2-Varadhavelu. P.W.2 and 8 alone have spoken about the sticker mark bearing the name of Anandan (P.W.8). It is not their case that the said sticker was found in tact when they saw M.O.5-car. On the other hand, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that when he saw the vehicle in the police station, the sticker had been removed, but the impression of the sticker was very much visible. Same was the evidence of P.W.8 also. According to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 8 when they saw the vehicle, the sticker bearing the name Anandan had been removed and the impression of the sticker with the letters "ANANDAN" was very much visible. It is not their evidence that after removing the name sticker bearing the name Anandan, another sticker had been pasted. Only in the seizure mahazar marked as Ex.P6, it has been stated that a sticker with the words "Radiating Vigour" had been pasted to hide the shade of the sticker with the name "ANANDAN" in the rear wind screen of the car. None of the witnesses, who allegedly saw the car before the police seized it, namely P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 has spoken about the fact that the sticker bearing the name "ANANDAN" had been removed and in its place the sticker with the words "Radiating vigour" had been affixed. 26. None of the witnesses, who allegedly saw the car before the police seized it, namely P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 has spoken about the fact that the sticker bearing the name "ANANDAN" had been removed and in its place the sticker with the words "Radiating vigour" had been affixed. 26. It seems P.W.24-Thirunavukkarasu, Scientific Assistant Gr.I, Forensic Science Department, Chennai examined the said car on the basis of Ex.p22-requisition letter and submitted a report under Ex.P23. He had observed therein that a sticker with the words "Radiating Vigour" was found on the rear windscreen of the car and underneath the said sticker he could find the English name "ANAND". Whether a sticker with the name "ANAND" was there over which the sticker "Radiating Vigour" had been pasted, is not clear from Ex.P23 or from the evidence of P.W.24. Since P.W.2 and P.Ws.6 to 8 did not state in their deposition that the sticker "Radiating Vigour" was found on the rear windscreen over the impression "ANAND", there is a reasonable suspicion that the sticker could have been pasted before the same was inspected by the Scientific Assistant. As such there is possibility of the police creating an impression of the name "ANAND" and then pasting Radiating Vigour sticker over the same in such a way that the impression "ANAND" was visible to project it as a mark of identification leading to the recovery of the vehicle. In this regard there is such a strong and reasonable suspicion, the benefit of which shall go to the concerned accused, namely the appellant herein. 27. The other aspects relied on by the prosecution to prove its case that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 411 IPC are that the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle had been removed and in their place new engine number and chassis number relating to a condemned vehicle had been provided and that after changing the chassis number and vehicle number the vehicle was plied with the number plate bearing the registration number of the condemned vehicle, namely TSC 556. The prosecution seems to have made an attempt to show that the property was the one stolen from the deceased and the appellant (A2) who was found to be in possession of the vehicle, was not able to account for the same. The prosecution seems to have made an attempt to show that the property was the one stolen from the deceased and the appellant (A2) who was found to be in possession of the vehicle, was not able to account for the same. In this regard, unless the prosecution is able to prove that the said vehicle produced as M.O.5 was the one which belonged to P.W.2 and the same was recovered from the appellant/accused, there would not be any presumption that he had received it dishonestly knowing or having reason to believe that the same was stolen property. In order to prove the case of prosecution in this regard, prosecution has examined P.W.9-Kuberan, P.W.20-Benjamin and P.W.21-Sajjanraj. They were examined in an attempt to show that the car bearing Regn. No.TSC 556 had been owned by P.W.20-Benjamin that he had availed financial assistance from P.W.21-Sajjanraj for purchasing the same; that since he was not able to pay the installments, P.W.21 took possession of the car and sold it to P.W.22-Jamalbai and handed over the RC book along with other documents, namely No Objection Certificate and T.O. Form duly signed; that P.W.22-Jamalbai dismantled the car, sold the parts as scraps and sold the RC book and other documents to P.W.9-Kuberan and that the said RC was changed in the name P.W.9-Kuberan and subsequently changed in the name of the appellant (A2). When such details are given, it shall be expected of the prosecution to produce the said RC book. But, unfortunately the said RC book was not recovered and produced. The explanation offered by the Investigating Officer (P.W.28) is that the accused, who initially agreed to produce the RC book, later on failed to do so. There is nothing on record to prove the same. In this connection, Thiru.Rajendiran, Motor Vehicle Inspector has been examined as P.W.14. According to his evidence, while he was functioning as Motor Vehicle Inspector-I in the Regional Transport Office, Arani, he inspected M.O.5-car and found it with engine number D-268929 and chassis No.111-373968 relating to an Ambassador car bearing Regn. No.TSC 556 as per A-Register maintained in their office; that as per the said Register, one S.Rahothaman was the first registered owner of the said vehicle, N.Kuberan (P.W.9) was the second owner of the vehicle and the appellant (A2) was the third owner of the vehicle. No.TSC 556 as per A-Register maintained in their office; that as per the said Register, one S.Rahothaman was the first registered owner of the said vehicle, N.Kuberan (P.W.9) was the second owner of the vehicle and the appellant (A2) was the third owner of the vehicle. It was also his evidence that the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle were removed and in their place, the above said engine number and chassis number had been affixed. 28. The evidence of P.W.14 will negative the prosecution case or at least cast a serious doubt regarding the prosecution version. According to the prosecution, P.W.20-Benjamin had purchased the vehicle and entered into a hire purchase agreement for a sum of Rs.1, 00,000/- with P.W.21-Sajjanraj and P.W.21-Sajjanraj took the vehicle and sold it to P.W.22-Jamalbai, as P.W.20 did not pay the installments properly. It is the evidence of P.W.20 that one Sundaram was the owner as per the RC and that he purchased the vehicle from the said Sundaram. It is his further evidence that the hypothecation arrangement he had made with P.W.21 had been entered in the RC book. But, as per the evidence of P.W.14, neither the Sundaram nor P.W.20-Benjamin was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TSC 556. Therefore, the theory of the prosecution that the vehicle had been owned by P.W.20 and the financier P.W.21 took possession of the vehicle and sold it to P.W.22-Jamalbai who dismantled the vehicle and sold the RC book to P.W.9-Kuberan seems to be a bigger pill to swallow. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 07.08.1997 and the vehicle itself was allegedly recovered under Ex.P6-Mahazar on 12.07.1998. P.W.20 was examined on 12.04.2002, nearly four years after the recovery of the vehicle. But, P.W.20 in his evidence has stated that he purchased the car bearing Regn. No.TSC 556 for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from one Sundaram, two years prior to the date of his examination, which will take us to the year 2000 much later than the alleged date of recovery of the M.O.5-car under Ex.P6. The evidence of P.W.21 is to the effect that P.W.20 availed financial assistance from P.W.21 for purchasing the said car five years prior to the date of his examination. According to the evidence of P.W.20, he purchased it for a sum of Rs.1, 25,000/-. The evidence of P.W.21 is to the effect that P.W.20 availed financial assistance from P.W.21 for purchasing the said car five years prior to the date of his examination. According to the evidence of P.W.20, he purchased it for a sum of Rs.1, 25,000/-. According to the evidence of P.W.21, he provided finance to the extent of Rs.1, 00,000/- to P.W.20 for the purchase of the car. As pointed out supra, according to the evidence of P.W.21, the same should have taken place some where in the year 1997. As per P.W.22s evidence he purchased the vehicle from P.W.21-Sajjanraj in 1997 itself. It is unbelievable and improbable that a vehicle which was purchased for a sum of Rs.1,25, 000/-was sold in the very same year for a paltry sum of Rs.30,000/-. It is also highly improbable that the financier who had provided financial assistance to the tune of Rs.1, 00,000/-to have sold the vehicle for a meager sum of Rs.30,000/- and refrained from taking action for the recovery of the balance amount from the borrower. Therefore, P.Ws.20 to 22, according to the considered view of this court, should have been the subsequent introduction by the police in order to show that the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TSC 556 was condemned and the RC book was purchased by the appellant (A2) to be used for the stolen vehicle. 29. Even regarding the sale of the RC book, the evidence of P.W.9 and 22 contain contradictory materials, which will make the case of the prosecution unbelievable. It is not the evidence of P.W.9 that he had accompanied P.W.22 to the place of P.W.21 for purchasing the car bearing Regn. No.TSC 556. It is also not his evidence that he contributed Rs.20, 000/- and P.W.22 contributed Rs.10,000/-for the purchase of the said car and for his contribution he got the RC book from P.W.22. On the other hand, his evidence is to the effect that he used to purchase spare parts from P.W.22 and on one such occasion, P.W.22 informed him that he had got the RC book of a car and asked him whether he wanted to have it and that his reply for the same was in the negative. On the other hand, his evidence is to the effect that he used to purchase spare parts from P.W.22 and on one such occasion, P.W.22 informed him that he had got the RC book of a car and asked him whether he wanted to have it and that his reply for the same was in the negative. It is his further evidence that four or five months there after A3-Palani approached him for getting a RC book to be used for another vehicle allegedly purchased from the Forest Department and there after he purchased the RC book from P.W.22, transferred the same in his name and then transferred the same in the name of the appellant (A2). It is his further evidence that he got an insurance policy for the said vehicle in the name of P.W.20, the previous owner and then got it transferred to his name. As already pointed out, P.W.20-Benjamin was never the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TSC 556. The evidence of P.W.9 in this regard, is also not reliable. Apart from the in-built improbability found in the evidence of P.W.9, a comparative study of the evidence P.Ws.9 and 22 will also show that the prosecution theory in this regard is improbable and unbelievable. According to the testimony of P.W.22, P.W.9 contributed Rs.20, 000/- and he contributed Rs.10,000/-for the purchase of the car, which is totally contra to the evidence of P.W.9. P.W.22 also has stated that he never informed P.W.9 that he had a RC book and if P.W.9 wanted to have it he could get it from him. This is also in total contradiction with the evidence of P.W.9. Therefore, the introduction of P.Ws.20 to 22 shall have the effect of spoiling the broth. 30. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution was able to prove that M.O.5 was not the vehicle covered by the registration certificate bearing Regn. No.TSC 556. The only fact relied on by the prosecution to show that M.O.5-vehicle was the one covered by the registration certificate bearing Regn. No.TSC 556 is that the engine number and chassis number had been allegedly removed and replaced by the engine and chassis number relating to the registration certificate bearing TSC No.556. In this regard, the evidence of P.W.14 (Motor Vehicle Inspector) and P.W.24-Scientific Assitant Gr.1 of the Forensic Department is relevant. No.TSC 556 is that the engine number and chassis number had been allegedly removed and replaced by the engine and chassis number relating to the registration certificate bearing TSC No.556. In this regard, the evidence of P.W.14 (Motor Vehicle Inspector) and P.W.24-Scientific Assitant Gr.1 of the Forensic Department is relevant. The certificate issued by P.W.14 is Ex.P11. The requisition letter for examination of the vehicle by the Motor Vehicle Inspector Gr.I is Ex.P10. So far as the engine number is concerned, admittedly the same would be inscribed in a plate attached to the engine, which can be easily removed and in its place another plate can be fixed. So far as chassis number is concerned, according to P.W.14, the style of letters 111 used at the time of manufacture of the vehicle was different from the style of the letters currently in use and the gap between the letters was also wider than the one found in the old chassis numbers and that is the reason why he came to the conclusion that the chassis number had been changed. Admittedly, the vehicle was not referred to the manufacturer to find out whether the chassis number and engine number found therein were the same found in the vehicle when it was released from the factory. Even assuming that the chassis number could have been changed that may be due to various reasons. For example a worn out chassis would have been replaced by a new chassis. Such replacement may be unauthorised and even may amount to an offence under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed there under. On the said fact alone, it will not be enough to come to the conclusion that the vehicle was not the vehicle relating to the registration certificate concerned. 31. The enumeration of such a large number of discrepancies and improbabilities will definitely lead to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant (A2) for an offence under Section 411 IPC and that the prosecution case in this regard is full of contradictions and improbabilities giving rise to a reasonable suspicion, the benefit of which shall be given to the accused, namely the appellant herein. The learned trial judge, without considering all the above said aspects, simply assumed that the vehicle should be the one allegedly stolen from the deceased and thus recorded an erroneous conviction for the offence under Section 411 IPC. The same shall not stand the scrutiny of this court and hence the conviction for the offence under Section 411 IPC recorded by the trial court deserves to be set aside and reversed. 32. Coming to the other charge, namely the charge for an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC, this court shall have to point out that the observations made in the discussion relating to the charge for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC apply to the said charge for an offence under Section 468 IPC also. It has been already held that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt its case that the vehicle M.O.5 was used with a wrong registration number that had been assigned to another vehicle which had been condemned and dismantled. The discussions in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment will also show that the theory of confession statement of the first accused leading to the recovery of M.O.5 car has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court itself has acquitted the first and third accused. The first accused who is alleged to have given confession statement leading to the recovery was given a clean chit by acquittal. Hence, the appellant/second accused in whose name the vehicle had been lastly registered, cannot be convicted for forgery on the assumption that RC book relating to another vehicle was used for M.O.5-car. It has not been proved that M.O.5 car was the one assigned the registration number TSL 9357. The registration certificate of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TSC 556 has not been produced. Even the LIST OF successive owners of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TSC 556, as projected by the prosecution is found to be false. As per the evidence of P.W.14, one Rahothaman happened to the first owner, P.W.9 happened to be the second owner and the appellant happened to be the third owner of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TSC No.556. Evidence has been adduced through P.W.9 and P.W.14 to the effect that an endorsement in the registration certificate regarding transfer of ownership of the vehicle could be made even without the production of the vehicle for inspection by the registering authority. No.TSC No.556. Evidence has been adduced through P.W.9 and P.W.14 to the effect that an endorsement in the registration certificate regarding transfer of ownership of the vehicle could be made even without the production of the vehicle for inspection by the registering authority. The same shows that things were done against the statutory rules and there shall be no wonder if an endorsement in the registration certificate of the car bearing Regn. No.TSC 556 could have been made even without the knowledge of the appellant/second accused. The non-production of the registration certificate and failure to produce even the records showing the photograph and signature of the appellant/second accused available with the registering authority will also create a serious doubt regarding the prosecution case. The evidence of P.W.10 is also not helpful for the prosecution to prove its case regarding the charge for an offence under Section 468 IPC. 33. When the evidence of the prosecution is properly marshaled, one can come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish any forgery, much less forgery for the purpose of cheating, beyond reasonable doubt. The court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and because of the same came to an erroneous conclusion that the appellant/A2 was guilty of the offence under Section 468 IPC and convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous punishment and to pay a fine of Rs.30, 000/-with a default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine. The said conviction and sentence cannot stand the scrutiny of this court and the same deserve to be reversed and set aside with the result that the appellant/A2 shall be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and 468 IPC also. 34. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant/A2 for offences under Section 411 and 468 IPC and the order of sentence imposed are set aside. The appellant/A2 is acquitted of all the offences with which he stood charged. The bail and the personal bond executed by the petitioner in lieu of the fine amount shall stand cancelled and the petitioner shall be set at liberty, in case he is not required in any other case.