Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 57 (GAU)

State of Tripura v. Shyamal Ghosh

2012-01-16

S.TALAPATRA

body2012
1. Heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the appellant State as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. A criminal investigation had started against the respondent on the basis of the complaint filed by one A.D. Das, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sabroom, South Tripura to the Officer in-Charge, Sabroom PS, South Tripura for illegal activities relating to issuance of citizenship certificate. 3. In the first information report, it was stated that on the three application forms which were submitted by the respondent, he wrote names of (1) Ashim Datta, (2) Shyamal Datta and (3) Ashis Datta as if those were their signatures. The respondent was accused of collecting money from the innocent village people by means of 'cheating'. 4. Having prompted by the said complaint, Sabroom police registered a case being Sabroom PS case No.28 of 2002 under section 468, IPC. Charge sheet was submitted by the police on completing investigation and the charge under section 468, IPC was framed against the respondent to which the respondent pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution, in support of their case, adduced as many as 12 witnesses including the informant and those three persons as PWs 8, 9 and 10, whose signatures were allegedly forged by the respondent. After recording the evidence, the learned trial court returned finding of acquittal. It appeared from the evidence that the respondent admitted in presence of the PWs 1, 7, 8 and 9 to have filed the applications in the name of the said persons but they did not see him putting the signatures. From the evidence of PW6, it transpired that the accused did not sign by the name of the applicants. The evidence of PWs 10 and 12 prima facie shows that a case against the respondent was prima facie found but they could not explain before the court how prima facie case was found. The so called confessional statement of the accused before the PWs 1, 7, 8 and 9 being in the nature of extra judicial confession was held to be a weak piece of evidence basing which no conviction can be sustained. The so called confessional statement of the accused before the PWs 1, 7, 8 and 9 being in the nature of extra judicial confession was held to be a weak piece of evidence basing which no conviction can be sustained. Accordingly, on benefit of doubt the respondent was acquitted by the trial court from the charge as framed under section 468, IPC by the impugned judgment and order dated 27.3.2004 as passed in G. R. No.54 of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sabroom, South Tripura. 6. Being aggrieved, the present appeal under section 378, Cr.PC has been filed by the State praying reversal of the judgment of acquittal. 7. While submitting, Mr. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P., has taken me to the deposition of the PW1, the informant, who stated that the father of the applicants informed him that the applications were made by one Shyamal Ghosh for their behalf. Since the signatures appeared shrouded with doubt, the informant asked the respondent about the authenticity and the respondent admitted to have put the signatures in the name of the said applicants. 8. I have marshalled and reviewed the statements of Ashim Datta, Ashis Datta as well as the statement of Shyamal Datta, the other applicant. They had stated nothing against or in relation to the respondent except that they filed their applications through the respondent as their father handed over the documents to the respondent for obtaining the citizenship certificate. No allegation was found that the respondent had cheated anyone or he had done so in exchange of money which can be termed as illegal gain. 9. In Siddhartha Vashista alias Manu Sharma v. The State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 , the apex Court laid the principles and scope of section 378, Cr.PC as under : "(i) There is no limitation on the part of the appellate Court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. (ii) The appellate court can also review the trial courts' conclusion with respect to both facts and law. (iii) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the State, it is the duty of appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. (ii) The appellate court can also review the trial courts' conclusion with respect to both facts and law. (iii) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the State, it is the duty of appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. (iv) An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are 'compelling and substantial reasons' for doing so. If the order is 'clearly unreasonable', it is a compelling reason for interference. (v) When the trial: court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored the material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc. the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial court depending on the material placed." 10. On review of the entire evidence, this court is of the opinion that the learned trial court did not misread or ignore iota of evidence while returning finding of acquittal. The impugned judgment and order having been well reasoned calls for no interference at all. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit. _____________