Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1966 (RAJ)

Hans Raj v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment dated 20.10.2008 passed by the learned Addl. sessions Judge, Raisingh nagar in revision No. 34/2008 whereby the Revisional burt affirmed the judgment dated 12.2.2008 in Case No. 349/2002 whereby the earned A.C.J.M., Raisingh nagar acquitted the respondents No. 2 to 4 of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. 2. Having failed in his endeavour to procure the conviction of the accused-respondents in the two Courts below, the complainant has approached this Court by way of this miscellaneous petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is ample evidence on record of the case to convict the respondents and that the learned Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court totally ignored the relevant material evidence establishing the commission of grave offences of forgery and cheating by the accused. He submits that the F.S.L. report pertaining to the disputed will was received in the Trial Court and was proved by the prosecution as Ex.P-23. He submits that the handwriting expert after examining the will Ex.P - 10 reported that the signatures of Manphool Ram on the will were different from his admitted signatures. Thus, the learned counsel contends that ex facie the offences of cheating and forgery were proved against the accused beyond all manner of doubt and thus they were liable to be convicted for the offences of fraud, cheating and forgery. 4. Notice of the miscellaneous petition was issued to the respondents. However, nobody has put any appearance on their behalf despite service. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgments impugned and the record. Upon going through the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, it is evident that the sole basis on the strength whereof the prosecution endeavoured to prove that the disputed will was bearing the forged signatures of Manphool Ram was the F.S.L. Report Ex.P-23. 6. It is settled law that the report of the hand writing expert is not admissible as a conclusive expert opinion under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and has to be proved by leading evidence. Admittedly the expert who prepared the report Ex.P-23 was not examined at the trial. 6. It is settled law that the report of the hand writing expert is not admissible as a conclusive expert opinion under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and has to be proved by leading evidence. Admittedly the expert who prepared the report Ex.P-23 was not examined at the trial. The learned Trial Court whilst appreciating the evidence found that the prosecution did not lead any evidence whatsoever so show that the admitted signatures on the documents forwarded to the expert for comparison were those of Manphool Ram. On the contrary the prosecution witnesses PW-4 Ganeshlal, PW-7 Subhash Chandra and PW-14 Tribhuvan Agarwal deposed on oath that Manphool signed and executed the Will Ex.P-10. The Will Ex.P-10 has the photograph of Manphool affixed thereupon. None of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant petitioner stated in their testimony that the photograph pasted on the Will was not that of Manphool. 7. The accused in their defence examined the handwriting expert Anil Kumar Gupta as DW-2. The expert gave evidence to the effect that the signatures on the disputed Will and the signatures on the admitted documents were similar. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court appropriately appreciated and sifted the evidence and was absolutely justified in holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the signatures of Manphool Ram on the Will in question were forged. In view of the serious shortcomings in the prosecution evidence, there was no option with the Trial Court but to acquit the respondents. The judgment of acquittal has been affirmed in revision as well. 8. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that it is not even such a case wherein it can even be held that two views are possible upon the appreciation of evidence on record. A judgment of acquittal cannot be interfere with even in an appeal against acquittal where two views are possible. The case at hand is a miscellaneous petition by the complainant. Thus, the view taken be the learned Trial Court acquitting the accused as affirmed by the Revisional Court is beyond any scope of interference.Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition being devoid of any merit is hereby rejected.Petition dismissed. *******