ORDER I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 31-07-2009, passed, in Special Case No. 37 of 2005, by the learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, Assam, Guwahati, convicting the two accused-appellants, under Sections 120(B), 468, 471, 465, and 420, and, additionally, convicting the accused-appellant, Biswajit Das, under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, 'the PC Act'), and sentencing each one of the two accused-appellants to (i) undergo, for their conviction under Section 120(B) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months, (ii) undergo, for their conviction under Section 468, read with Section 120(B) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months, (iii) undergo, for their conviction under Sections 471 and 465, read with Section 120(B) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year, (iv) undergo, for their conviction, under Section 420 read with Section 120(B) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months; and, as far as accused-appellant, Biswajit Das, is concerned, he has been sentenced, additionally, to undergo, for his conviction under Section 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.20,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, suffer further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be set out as under: (i) In the month of March, 2003, on having come across a newspaper report regarding some fraudulent transactions in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the LICI'), Mirza Branch, relating to death claims and having also been reported by an employee of the LICI that a person, whose death claim had already been settled, appeared in the office of the LICI and since the person was known, people, in the office, got alarmed, because the person was the one, whose insurance policy had been closed by making payment of the assured amount on the ground that he had died, though he had, in fact, not died, Senior Divisional Manager, LICI, Guwahati Division, (PW 25) directed a preliminary inquiry to be made by his subordinates and, having come to learn, on the basis of the inquiry, so made, that some persons, other than the employees of the LICI, were involved in the fraudulent payments, he (PW 25), in consultation with the Chief Vigilance Officer, LICI, lodged a complaint with the CBI, Guwahati. (ii) Having carried out its investigation and having obtained requisite sanction, under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, the CBI laid charge-sheet, under Sections 120(B)/419 /420 /468 /471 /201 IPC, against both the accused, namely, Dwijen Thakuria and Biswajit Das, and as against accused Biswajit Das, prosecution was also sought for having allegedly committed offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The case of the CBI, briefly stated, thus: (a) While functioning as Development Officer of the LICI, Mirza Branch, accused Biswajit Das had entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Dwijen Thakuria, whose wife was an agent of the LICI. Pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, so entered into, two LICI policies, assured for the life of Phatik Thakuria (PW 22), were settled on the basis of the claims, said to have been made by the nominees of the two policy holders aforementioned, that the policy holder, Phatik Thakuria, had died. Pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, so entered into, two LICI policies, assured for the life of Phatik Thakuria (PW 22), were settled on the basis of the claims, said to have been made by the nominees of the two policy holders aforementioned, that the policy holder, Phatik Thakuria, had died. (b) The two insurance policies of Phatik Thakuria were purportedly settled as death claims in favour of Smti Bina Thakuria, wife and the nominee of Phatik Thakuria, and the sums, assured in the said two Life Insurance Policies, were credited into the bank account, which stood purportedly opened in the name of Smt. Bina Thakuria, in the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, the introducer of the said Smt. Bina Thakuria being accused Dwijen Thakuria, but in place of Bina Thakuria's photographs, as was required to be pasted on the account opening form and the specimen card of the bank, the photographs of Smt. Bijuli Kalita, wife of accused Dwijen Thakuria, had been pasted/attached to. (c) The charge-sheet alleged that both the insurance policies of Phatik Thakuria were settled on the basis of death claims said to have been made by his nominees despite the fact that Phatik Thakuria was still alive and not even aware of the fact that the death claims, as mentioned hereinbefore, had been made nor did his wife, Bina Thakuria, as the nominee, received the cheques in respect of the assured amounts, issued by the LICI, which had been deposited in the forged and fictitious account of Smt. Bina Thakuria and, thereafter, cheques of diverse sums of money, seeking encashment of the amounts, mentioned in the cheques, were deposited in the said forged and fictitious account of Bina Thakuria, the cheques having been filled up by accused Biswajit Das and the money, covered by the said cheques, were shown to have been received by Bina Thakuria, wife of Phatik Thakuria, though no such payment had ever been received by Bina Thakuria. (d) In fact, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, which both the accused aforementioned had entered into, they had visited the house of Phatik Thakuria in the year 2000 and took away the two insurance policies, in question, including the premium payment receipts, from Phatik Thakuria on the pretext that the policies were required to be upgraded. The charge-sheet also alleged that Phatik Thakuria had never made any death claim to the LICI. The charge-sheet also alleged that Phatik Thakuria had never made any death claim to the LICI. (e) The charge-sheet, as against the accused Biswajit Das, was laid after having obtained requisite sanction from the competent authority. 2. At the trial, charges against both the accused were framed under Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 465 and 471 IPC and, as against accused Biswajit Das, an additional charge was framed under Section read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. To the charges, so framed, both the accused pleaded not guilty. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 30 witnesses. Both the accused were, then, examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr. P.C. and, in their examinations aforementioned, both the accused denied that they had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of total denial. While accused Dwijen Thakuria adduced evidence by examining one witness, accused Biswajit Das declined to adduce any evidence. 4. Having, however, found both the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 120(B), Section 468 read with Section 120(B) IPC, Sections 471 and 465 read with Section 120(B) IPC, Section 419 read with Section 120(B) IPC, Section 420 read with Section 120(B) IPC, the learned trial Court convicted them accordingly and, having found accused Biswajit Das also guilty of an offence, under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, convicted accused Biswjit Das accordingly. Following their conviction, the impugned sentences were passed against the two convicted persons as mentioned above. 5. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences, which have been passed against them, both the accused, as convicted persons, have preferred appeals. Both the appeals, so preferred, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 6. I have heard Mr. DK Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant, Dwijen Thakuria, and Mr. P Bora, learned counsel, for the accused-appellant, Biswajit Das. I have also heard Mr. PN Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, CBI, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 7. 6. I have heard Mr. DK Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant, Dwijen Thakuria, and Mr. P Bora, learned counsel, for the accused-appellant, Biswajit Das. I have also heard Mr. PN Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, CBI, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 7. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that it is the undisputed evidence of PW 1 that Biswajit Das was, at the relevant point of time, Development Officer of the LICI at Mirza Branch and while Dwijen Thakuria was not an agent, his wife was an agent of the LICI, but people, generally, knew Dwijen Thakuria as an agent of the LICI, because it was Dwijen Thakuria, who used to act as an LICI agent on behalf of his wife, Bijuli Thakuria. 8. Bearing in mind the fact that accused Biswajit Das was, at the relevant point of time, Development Officer, LICI, Mirza Branch, and accused Dwijen Thakuria's wife, Bijuli Kalita, was an agent of the LICI, let us, first come to the evidence of PW 22 (Phatik Thakuria), whose two insurance policies were allegedly used for the purpose of settling death claims on the false ground that he had died. This witness's evidence, being crucial, his evidence needs to be carefully noted. 9. It is in the evidence of PW 22 that he has been a businessman, his wife's name is Bina Thakuria, he had two LICI policies, one policy being for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the other policy being for a sum of Rs.75,000/-, and, in both the said policies, his wife, Bina Thakuria, was nominee and, as Mirza is a small place, he (PW 22) knew both, Dwijen Thakuria and Biswajit Das, and that Dwijen Thakuria was known as an LICI agent. 10. It is also in the evidence of PW 22 that both the accused came once to his house requesting him to take new policies, but he declined by saying that he already had two policies and showed his two visitors his said two life insurance policies and, on being shown the said two policies by PW 22, both the accused took away the said policies, along with money receipts of the premiums paid, telling PW 22 that the said policies were required to be upgraded. 11. 11. PW 22 has deposed that after some days, one Sri Sarma, who was the then Manager, LICI, Mirza Branch, came to the residence of PW 22, when PW 22 was not present at his house, and told his wife, Bina Thakuria (PW 24), to ask her husband (PW 22) to meet him and PW 22 accordingly went, on the following day, to the office of the LICI, Mirza Branch, and met the then Manager, Mr. Sarma, who informed PW 22 that both his policies had been encashed by Dwijen Thakuria and Biswajit Das in the name of PW 22's wife, namely, Smt. Bina Thakuria, showing PW 22 as having died. PW 22 has clarified that he had never asked Dwijen Thakuria and Biswajit Das to encash his policies. 12. Though PW 22 was put to cross-examination, nothing could be elicited from him to show that what he had deposed was untrue or false. In his cross-examination, PW 22 has, however, clarified that he had mentioned the name of Bina Thakuria as nominee, in the said two policies, at the time, when his wife was not present at home, and that Dwijen Thakuria, accompanied by Biswajit Das, had come to his house and requested him to start a new policy, which he (PW 22) declined, and it was, thereafter, that his said two visitors assured that the two policies, which PW 22 had handed over to them, would be upgraded and they would inform him afterwards. Though PW 22 has admitted that he did not file any FIR, he claimed that he had come to know that cases had been registered against both, Biswajit Das and Dwijen Thakuria, and that on the advice of the Manager, LICI, Mirza Branch, he filed an application before the Branch Manager, LICI, Mirza Branch. 13. In his cross-examination, PW 22 has also clarified that he did not verify whether Dwijen Thakuria was LICI agent or not and that he, in 'good faith', handed over his two insurance policies to the two accused by putting his signatures on the said two policies. It is also in the evidence of PW 22 that Biswajit Das came to his residence earlier also on the occasion of a ceremony, which was held on his daughter attaining puberty. It is also in the evidence of PW 22 that Biswajit Das came to his residence earlier also on the occasion of a ceremony, which was held on his daughter attaining puberty. In his cross-examination, PW 22 has further clarified that though he had 3/4 policies of the LICI, those were discontinued as he could not pay the premiums. 14. It was suggested to PW 22 by the defence that he (PW 22) had difficult time in business and, that was why, he had called Dwijen Thakuria and Biswajit Das to help him surrender the policies and he had, accordingly, surrendered, voluntarily, the said two policies. This suggestion was, however, denied by PW 22. 15. What needs to be noted, while discussing the evidence of PW 22, is that the facts that two accused had visited the house of PW 22, as deposed to by PW 22, that they had taken away the said two insurance policies on the pretext of upgrading the said two policies, that in both the policies, Bina Thakuria, as wife of PW 22, was the nominee, could not be shaken. Far from this, these facts were tacitly admitted inasmuch as the suggestion, offered to PW 22 (though denied by PW 22), was that it was PW 22 himself, who had surrendered the policy by calling Dwijen Thakuria and Biswajit Das, meaning thereby that Dwijen Thakuria and Biswajit Das had, indeed, received the said two policies of PW 22. It has also surfaced from the evidence of PW 22 that besides the said two policies, the two accused had taken away, from PW 22, all the receipts of premiums, which PW 22 had paid in respect of his said two policies. 16. In his cross-examination, PW 22 has asserted that when he had handed over the documents aforementioned, i.e., the said two insurance policies, premium paid receipts with his signatures, except he (PW 22), accused Dwijen Thakuria and Biswajit Das, none else was present. This assertion of PW 22 went unchallenged by the defence. 17. Though it has been pointed out by Mr. This assertion of PW 22 went unchallenged by the defence. 17. Though it has been pointed out by Mr. P. Bora, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, Biswajit Das, that according to PW 22, accused Biswajit Das had gone to his house 'once' at the time of the ceremony, which had been observed on the daughter of PW 22 attaining puberty, it needs to be noted, in this regard, that the clear evidence of PW 22 is that both the accused came to his house 'once' for the purpose of requesting him to open new LIC policy. It has never been in the evidence of PW 22 that it was 'only once' that accused Biswajit Das had come to his house. In this context, when the evidence given by PW 22 is considered that Biswajit Das had come 'once' for attending the puberty attaining ceremony of his daughter, because he had been invited to attend that ceremony, it becomes abundantly clear that the visit of accused Biswajit Das, accompanied by accused Dwijen Thakuria, to the house of PW 22 to collect the insurance policies on the pretext of upgrading the same cannot be described, or cannot be said to be, the 'only visit' of accused Biswajit Das. 18. Nothing could, in fact, be elicited from PW 22 to show that what he has deposed is untrue or false. When there is nothing to show that PW 22 has any animosity with any of the two accused-appellants or that he or his wife, Bina Thakuria, had received any part or portion of the amount(s), which had been released by the LICI on the basis of the death claims made in respect of the said two insurance policies of PW 22, there remains no manner of doubt that both the accused-appellants did visit the house of PW 22, as deposed to by PW 22, and, on the pretext of upgrading PW 22's said two insurance policies, they did collect the said policies, premium paid receipts, in this regard, with the signatures of PW 22 on the said policies. 19. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW 22 is the evidence of PW 5, a doctor, which needs to be, now, considered. 19. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW 22 is the evidence of PW 5, a doctor, which needs to be, now, considered. The evidence of PW 5 is that he joined as Medical Examiner, LICI, Mirza Branch, during the year 1988-89, and that he is required to give his report as regards status of health of the policy holders. 20. It is the evidence of PW 5 that he knew accused Dwijen Thakuria as an LICI agent of the LICI office, Mirza Branch, and that accused Dwijen Thakuria came to him (PW 5) and showed him a certificate received from Gaonburah (village headman) regarding death of one Phatik Thakuria (PW 22) and that at that time, accused Dwijen Thakuria had also brought, with him, another person, whom (according to the evidence of PW 5), accused Dwijen Thakuria had introduced as a relative of Phatik Thakuria. This apart, according to the evidence of the doctor (PW 5), while approaching him (PW 5) for obtaining death certificate of Phatik Thakuria, the application, which accused Dwijen Thakuria had brought with him, had been duly filled containing the information as regards the death of Phatik Thakuria, and, in good faith, he (PW 5) issued a death certificate, in the name of Phatik Thakuria, and handed over the same to accused Dwijen Thakuria. In his evidence, PW 5 has clarified that he did not personally know Phatik Thakuria and that his death certificate was based on the certificate, which had been given by Gaonburah. 21. In his cross-examination, PW 5 (doctor) has clarified that Dwijen Thakuria had been known to him as the agent of the LICI since 1990 and that since 1990, accused Dwijen Thakuria used to come to his house, but Dwijen Thakuria stopped coming to his house since the year 2005, when the present case was instituted. In his cross-examination, PW 5 has also clarified that upon inquiry made by him, accused Dwijen Thakuria told him that it was a fact that Phatik Thakuria had died. 22. In his cross-examination, PW 5 has also clarified that upon inquiry made by him, accused Dwijen Thakuria told him that it was a fact that Phatik Thakuria had died. 22. Though denied by Dwijen Thakuria that he had carried to PW 5 a certificate, as regards death of Phatik Thakuria (PW 22), from the Gaonburah, or that he had obtained death certificate from PW 5 in respect of death of PW 22 on the basis of the certificate, which had been issued, in this regard, by the Gaonburha, both these suggestions have been denied by PW 5. Nothing could be brought out from the cross-examination of PW 5 to show that what he had deposed was untrue or false. 23. Crucially enough, lending support to the evidence of PW 5, PW 6, who was headman of village Coachpara, has admitted, in his evidence, that he had issued the death certificate, in question, without verifying if Phatik Thakuria was really alive or dead. 24. Broadly in tune with the evidence of PW 5 and PW 6, PW 27 has deposed that he worked as a Field worker, at Sonapur Primary Health Centre, since the year 1987 and he joined Uparhali Primary Health Centre, Mriza, as a Field Worker, in the year 1991 and he used to issue death certificates. 25. It is in the evidence of PW 27 that whenever any person approached their PHC for obtaining death certificate, the PHC issued death certificate, in the prescribed form, on the basis of the death certificate issued by the doctor. It is in the evidence of this witness (PW 27) that he met Dwijen Thakuria, for the first time, at his said PHC, when accused Dwijen Thakuria approached him (PW 27) seeking to obtain death certificate of a person, namely, Phatik Thakuria and that while coming to the PHC, Dwijen Thakuria had already brought a death certificate given by Dr. Dilip Das (i.e., PW 5, whose evidence, we have already discussed above) and, thus, a death certificate, in the name of Phatik Thakuria, was accordingly issued and handed over to accused Dwijen Thakuria. Dilip Das (i.e., PW 5, whose evidence, we have already discussed above) and, thus, a death certificate, in the name of Phatik Thakuria, was accordingly issued and handed over to accused Dwijen Thakuria. In his cross-examination, this witness has clarified that it was in the year 2001, when police made inquiry from him that he came to learn that Phatik Thakuria was still alive and he (PW 27), immediately, informed the Medical and Health Officer, Uparhali PHC, about the fact that Phatik Thakuria was still alive. 26. Though PW 27 has been cross-examined by the defence, nothing could be extracted from his cross-examination to show that his evidence was false or incorrect or his evidence that it was Dwijen Thakuria, who had obtained the death certificate, was not true. Thus, the evidence of PW 27 could not be shaken on material aspects. 27. Coupled with the above, one must not lose sight of the fact that the identification of accused Dwijen Thakuria, at the trial, is substantive evidence against the said accused unlike a Test Identification Parade (in short, 'TIP'), which is conducted at the stage of investigation. 28. It is, therefore, permissible to rely on such substantive evidence of identification of an accused at the trial, though rule of prudence demands that in the absence of a TIP having been held properly and in accordance with law, the conviction of an accused should not be based entirely on his being identified, at the trial, by a witness, who did not know the accused. 29. With regard to the above, a reference may be made to the case of State of U.P. vs. Boota Singh and Ors., reported in (1979) 1 SCC 31 , wherein the High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision, in the case of Budhsen vs. State of U.P., reported in (1970) 2 SCC 128 , had held that there can be no two opinions about the fact that the evidence of identification is very weak type of evidence and should be closely scrutinized before reliance is placed thereon. Not agreeing with such a broad proposition of law, which the High Court had set in Boota Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court has explained its decision in Budhsen's case (supra). 30. Not agreeing with such a broad proposition of law, which the High Court had set in Boota Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court has explained its decision in Budhsen's case (supra). 30. The Supreme Court has, thus, explained, in Boota Singh's case (supra), that while holding, in Budhsen (supra), that evidence of identification, for the first time, at the trial, is of a weak character, what the Court really meant was that where the evidence of a witness, in the court, is not tested by prior identification parade, not much reliance can be placed on such evidence. The Supreme Court, in Boota Singh's case (supra), has further pointed out that Budhsen (supra) does not lay down a rule of universal application and that where a witness, who had identified an accused at a TI Parade held by a Magistrate after observing all the essential formalities and taking the necessary precautions, again, identifies the accused in Court, too, the evidence of identification can be believed unless the evidence of witness suffers from some other infirmity. Moreover, the evidence of identification becomes stronger if the witness has an opportunity of seeing the accused not for a few minutes, but for some length of time, in broad day light, when he would be able to note the features of the accused more carefully than on seeing the accused in a dark night for a few minutes. 31. To put it a little differently, what the decision, in Boota Singh's case (supra), lays down is that the identification of an accused by a witness, at the trial, is really substantive piece of evidence and even if such identification has not been tested by a prior identification parade, a court may still rely on such a piece of evidence of identification if the court is satisfied that the witness had the time and the opportunity of seeing and noticing the features of the accused and, hence, when a witness had only fleeting glace of an accused or had not seen the accused due to darkness or dim light and not for sufficient period of time to have noticed the features of the accused, such a piece of evidence may be unsafe to rely upon; but there is no law that identification of an accused by a witness, for the first time, at the trial, cannot, or must not, in all circumstances, be relied upon. Therefore, the value of identification of an accused by a witness, at a trial, depends on the facts of a given case. 32. In the case at hand, there was sufficient time and opportunity with PW 27 to see, meet and talk to Dwijen Thakuria and the evidence of PW 27, having remained completely unshaken in his cross-examination, I see no reason to disbelieve his evidence, or not to rely upon his evidence, which his evidence, otherwise, deserves. 33. On a cautious and combined reading of the evidence of PW 22 (Phatik Thakuria), PW 6, the headman of the village Coachpara, PW 5, the doctor, and PW 7, an employee of Uparhali PHC, it becomes abundantly clear that the two accused-appellants, namely, Dwijen Thakuria and Biswajit Das, had gone to the house of Phatik Thakuria and, on the pretext of getting the two insurance policies of PW 22 updated, they took away the said two policies along with the premium payment receipts and, thereafter, accused Dwijen Thakuria obtained a false death certificate from the village headman (PW 6) and, on the basis of the said certificate, he obtained death certificate of Phatik Thakuria from PW 5, who is a doctor, and, on the basis of the certificate, which had been so issued by the doctor (PW 5), accused-appellant, Dwijen Thakuria, fraudulently obtained a death certificate from Uparhali PHC. 34. Bearing in mind what we have noted above, we, now, come to the evidence of PW 2, whose evidence is that on 21-05-2002, she functioned as Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch. Describing the procedure for opening of a new account, this witness (PW 2) has deposed that when someone wants to open a new account at their bank, the person needs to fill up the account opening form as well as specimen signature card and that the application form is required to be filled up in presence of the officials of the bank and though the application form as well as the specimen signature card can be filled up by any person, the signature of account holder needs to be given at the respective places. This witness has proved Ext. 2 as the account opening form in the name of Bina Thakuria, whose account was opened, on 11-09-2000, at the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, the introducer of the said account holder being Dwijen Thakuria. This witness has proved Ext. 2 as the account opening form in the name of Bina Thakuria, whose account was opened, on 11-09-2000, at the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, the introducer of the said account holder being Dwijen Thakuria. It is also in the evidence of PW 2 that Ext. 3 is the specimen signature card in the name of Bina Thakuria and that in the specimen signature card, Dwijen Thakuria was the introducer. 35. Further evidence of PW 2 is that Ext. 4 is a bearer cheque, amounting to Rs.50,000/-, dated 03-10-2000, which appears to have been issued by Bina Thakuria and that the said amount was withdrawn from the account of Bina Thakuria by Dwijen Thakuria. It is in the evidence of PW 2 that Ext. 6 is a bearer cheque, for Rs.60,000/-, dated 13-10-2000, issued by Bina Thakuria and that the amount, mentioned in the said cheque, was withdrawn by Bina Thakuria and that apart from these two cheques, Ext. 7 is yet another bearer cheque for Rs.30,000/-, dated 16-10-2000, issued by Bina Thakuria and the amount, mentioned in this cheque, too, was withdrawn by Dwijen Thakuria. In this manner, according to the evidence of PW 2, two more payments were received by Dwijen Thakuria in respect of the bearer cheques, which are Ext. 8 and Ext. 9. 36. In his cross-examination, PW 2 has clarified that signatures of Dwijen Thakuria are found affixed on each and every cheque, though in some of the cheques, Bina Thakuria's name, too, appears. 37. In her cross-examination, PW 2 has also clarified that the signatures of Dwijen Thakuria and Bina Thakuria were not put in her presence, but she has identified the said signatures, because of the names mentioned on the said cheques. 38. From the evidence of PW 2, what clearly surfaces is that the accounts were opened in the name of Bina Thakuria, cheques were deposited there and the amounts, mentioned in the cheques, were realized, by issuing several cheques for diverse sums of money by a person, claiming to be Bina Thakuria, and the amounts were received by one Dwijen Thakuria. 39. In short, thus, the cheques aforementioned were encashed by someone, who claimed to be Bina Thakuria, and that the account was opened, in the name of Bina Thakuria, on her being introduced by a person, who called himself Dwijen Thakuria. 40. 39. In short, thus, the cheques aforementioned were encashed by someone, who claimed to be Bina Thakuria, and that the account was opened, in the name of Bina Thakuria, on her being introduced by a person, who called himself Dwijen Thakuria. 40. Though it transpires that an account was opened at the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, in the name of Bina Thakuria, on her being introduced by one Dwijen Thakuria, the questions, which still surface, are as to whether Bina Thakuria, whose name was used for the purpose of opening the account, in question, was or was not the wife of Phatik Thakuria and whether accused Dwijen Thakuria was the one, who had introduced the said Bina Thakuria? 41. My quest for an answer to the above questions brings me to the evidence of PW 20. 42. So far as PW 20 is concerned, he has deposed that he has been, at the relevant point of time, working as a clerk in the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch. Having gone through Ext. 7, this witness has deposed that the cheque, bearing No. 009704, was issued by Bipin Ch. Das and counter signed by Bichitra Narayan Deka. PW 20 has proved the signatures of these two persons as Ext. 7/1 and 7/2 on the ground that he had worked with them and was acquainted with their signatures. This witness has also deposed that by Ext. 7, payment was made to Dwijen Thakuria, who, in the presence of this witness (PW 20), put his signature on the backside of the cheque and Ext. 4 is the said signature of Dwijen Thakuria. It is in the evidence of PW 20 that he knew Dwijen Thakuria as the latter was a regular customer of the bank and he used to come to their bank and he knew Dwijen Thakuria as a customer of the bank. 43. PW 20 has clarified that in the case of bearer cheque, payment can be made to anybody, who produces the cheque for payment. PW 20 has reiterated that he not only knew Dwijen Thakuria, but he also knew Bijuli Kakoti and Bina Thakuria. 43. PW 20 has clarified that in the case of bearer cheque, payment can be made to anybody, who produces the cheque for payment. PW 20 has reiterated that he not only knew Dwijen Thakuria, but he also knew Bijuli Kakoti and Bina Thakuria. PW 20 has asserted that he knows that all the five cheques were given to Dwijen Thakuria and Dwijen Thakuria came to the bank alone and withdrew the amounts and that, out of the five cheques, he only made payment of one cheque for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (marked as Ext. 7) and that the cheque, in question, was issued by Bina Thakuria, account holder, the cheques being self-drawn cheques. 44. PW 20 has also clarified that Ext. 21 is a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,67,583/-, issued by the LICI, Mirza Branch, to Bina Thakuria, in her Account No. 9582, at the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, and that the said amount had been deposited in the account of Bina Thakuria. 45. PW 20 has deposed that Bina Thakuria's account was opened on 11-09-2000. The material aspects of the evidence of PW 20 have remained wholly unshaken. 46. When the evidence of PW 20 is considered, in the light of the evidence of PW 2, it becomes clear that it was accused Dwijen Thakuria, who had received payments of the bearer cheques, in question, from the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, the money having been released from the account of Bina Thakuria. 47. Let me, now, turn to the evidence of PW 4, who has deposed that Purbanchal Bank was merged with the Central Bank of India and though he (PW 4) was, originally, a clerk of Purbanchal Bank, he was posted at Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, in the year 1991. This witness has deposed that Ext. 5 and Ext. 8 are the self-cheques, signed by one Smt. Bina Thakuria, for Rs.16,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively, and that the payments, in respect of these cheques, were made to one Sri Dwijen Thakuria and, similarly, Ext. 4, which was a cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, was passed by his bank and the amount was received by Dwijen Thakuria. To the same effect is the evidence of PW 4 in respect of the Ext. 6, Ext. 7 and Ext. 9, which are also self-cheques for Rs. 60,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 4, which was a cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, was passed by his bank and the amount was received by Dwijen Thakuria. To the same effect is the evidence of PW 4 in respect of the Ext. 6, Ext. 7 and Ext. 9, which are also self-cheques for Rs. 60,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 8,000/-, respectively, purportedly drawn by Bina Thakuria and that amounts, covered by the said cheques, were encashed by Dwijen Thakuria. 48. PW 4 has deposed that Ex. 2 is the account opening form in the name of Bina Thakuria, in respect of Account No. 9582, and that said Bina Thakuria was introduced by Dwijen Thakuria and that Ext. 2(1) is the signature of one B.C. Das, who had allowed opening of the said account. PW 4 has further deposed that Ext. 3 is the specimen signature card in the name of Smt. Bina Thakuria and that the introducer of the said Smt. Bina Thakuria was Sri Dwijen Thakuria. 49. In his cross-examination, it has been clarified by PW 4 that Dwijen Thakuria was also an account holder in the said bank and that the amounts, covered by Ext. 4 to Ext. 9, which were in the name of Smt. Bina Thakuria, had been withdrawn by Dwijen Thakuria. 50. What needs to be noted is that though PW 4 has admitted that despite the fact that he had made payments vide Ext. 5 and Ext. 8, there was no endorsement, given by him on the reverse side of Ext. 5 and Ext. 8, to the effect that he had made payment to Sri Dwijen Thakuria, this witness has nonetheless deposed that he had known Dwijen Thakuria as one of the account holders and that the amounts, which were covered by the said cheques, had been withdrawn by accused Dwijen Thakuria. 51. Let me, now, turn to the evidence of PW 10, who had, at the relevant point of time, been working at the LICI, Mirza Branch, as an Assistant. He has deposed that Ext. 3 is the specimen signature card in the name of Bina Thakuria and Ext. 2 is the account opening form and that he knows Bina Thakuria as she belongs to the same place to which he (this witness) belongs. He has deposed that Ext. 3 is the specimen signature card in the name of Bina Thakuria and Ext. 2 is the account opening form and that he knows Bina Thakuria as she belongs to the same place to which he (this witness) belongs. What is, however, of immense importance to note, in the evidence of PW 10, is that he has deposed that the photographs, affixed to Ext. 2 and Ext. 3, namely, the specimen signature card and account opening form, respectively, were not the photographs of Bina Thakuria. 52. In his cross-examination, PW 10 has also clarified that he had not visited the house of Phatik Thakuria and his wife, Smt. Bina Thakuria, but very often, he used to meet them in the market and that he also knows Dwijen Thakuria, who visits the LICI office, Mirza. 53. From the unshaken evidence of PW 10, what becomes clear is that the photographs, which had been affixed or attached to Ext. 2 and Ext. 3 (which are the specimen signature card and account opening form of the bank respectively), as the photographs of Bina Thakuria, were actually not of Bina Thakuria. 54. What clearly follows from the above discussion of the evidence on record is that the account, which had been opened in the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, in the name of Bina Thakuria (as rightly pointed out by the prosecution), had not been opened by Bina Thakuria herself, but the said account was, indeed, opened in her name and the person, who had introduced the purported Bina Thakuria, was accused Dwijen Thakuria inasmuch as it was accused Dwijen Thakuria, who had acted, as would be evident, as an introducer of the said Smt. Bina Thakuria. 55. Logically extended, it would mean that accused Dwijen Thakuria had introduced someone, other than Bina Thakuria (PW 24), wife of Phatik Thakuria, as Bina Thakuria, and got the account opened, at the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, in the name of Bina Thakuria, and, then, the cheque, issued by the LICI, was deposited in the said account, and, by various self-cheques, diverse sums of money were withdrawn and those amounts were received by none other than accused Dwijen Thakuria. 56. Lending support to the evidence of PW 10, PW 12, who worked at the LICI office, Mirza Branch, in the year 1989, as an Assistant, has deposed that Ext. 56. Lending support to the evidence of PW 10, PW 12, who worked at the LICI office, Mirza Branch, in the year 1989, as an Assistant, has deposed that Ext. 3 is the specimen signature card of savings bank account in the name of Bina Thakuria and Ext. 2 is the account opening form in the name of Bina Thakuria. PW 12 has deposed that he knows Bina Thakuria and the photographs, which stood attached to the account opening form and the specimen signature card, are not of Bina Thakuria. 57. The defence has not disputed, while cross-examining PW 12, that he knew Bina Thakuria and her husband, Phatik Thakuria. Considered in this light, it is clear, particularly, when the evidence of PW 12 has remained unshaken (while being cross-examined), that the saving bank account, which was opened at Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, in the name of Bina Thakuria, was, in fact, a fictitious account. 58. It is important to note that it is also the unshaken evidence of PW 12 that he knew Dwijen Thakuria and that as an agent of the LICI, accused Dwijen Thakuria used to visit their office. In his cross-examination, PW 12 has clarified that though he knows Dwijen Thakuria, he did not know Bijuli Kalita, agent of LICI. 59. The evidence of PW 13 is similar, in material particulars, to the evidence of PW 12 inasmuch as this witness (PW 13), too, has deposed that he knows Bina Thakuria and that the photographs, on Ext. 2 (i.e., the specimen signature card) and Ext. 3 (account opening form), are not of Bina Thakuria. 60. There remains, in the light of the evidence of PW 10, PW 12 and PW 14, no manner of doubt that the photographs, which were attached, or affixed, to Ext. 2, which was specimen signature card, and Ext. 3, which was account opening form, in the name of Bina Thakuria, were not of Bina Thakuria (PW 24), though Bina Thakuria (PW 24) was the nominee in the insurance policies of Phatik Thakuria (PW 22). 61. In short, thus, the saving bank account, which had been opened at the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, in the name of Bina Thakuria, was, if one may reiterate, a fictitious account. 62. 61. In short, thus, the saving bank account, which had been opened at the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, in the name of Bina Thakuria, was, if one may reiterate, a fictitious account. 62. So far as PW 21 is concerned, his evidence is that he joined, as Clerk, on 07.07.1986, at the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, and, till the date of giving deposition, i.e., on 12.12.2008, he has been working as Cash Payment Clerk. 63. Describing the procedure, followed by Central Bank, as regards making of payment, this witness has deposed as follows: When I receive any cheque, I see whether the amount of the cheque is written correctly or not in words as well as in figure. Thereafter, I see whether the date is correctly put or not. Then I see whether the signature of the account holder is verified by the passing officer or not. Thereafter, I see whether the pay order is given by the passing officer or not and then I call the token holder to take the payment and if I know him as a customer, then, I make payment. In case of bearer cheque, I check the nature of the signature of the producer/bearer of the cheque to match his earlier signature given at the time of taking the token. Thereafter, I made the payment after putting the seal and signature. In case of the cheque, which is drawn as self, but the cheque is brought to the bank by the bearer other than the account holder, then I make payment only after taking the signature of the bearer. In case of cheque, which is drawn as self and if the account holder himself is present, then I make the payment to the account holder only after taking his signature on the back side of the cheque. 64. So far as Ext. 4, i.e., the cheque No. 009701, for Rs.50,000/-, is concerned, this witness (PW 21) has deposed that this cheque was passed by Ranjit Kumar Baruah and the pay order was given by Bipin Das and since PW 21 is conversant with their signatures, which were exhibited as Ext. 4/1 and 4/2 respectively, he himself put the seal 'cash paid', which is Ext. 4/3. 65. 4/1 and 4/2 respectively, he himself put the seal 'cash paid', which is Ext. 4/3. 65. What is of immense importance to note, now, is that this witness (PW 21) has identified and proved the signature, on the reverse side of the cheque, (which was a bearer cheque), as the signature of Dwijen Thakuria at the time of taking of the token by Ext. 4/4. 66. As regards Ext. 6, PW 21 has deposed that this cheque was passed by Ranjit Kumar Baruah and Binod Prasad Sharma and this witness has identified and proved the signatures of the said persons as Ext. 6/1 and 6/2, respectively, and that he (PW 21) himself was the person, who had put the seal 'cash paid' and proved the said seal as Ext. 6/3. 67. What is of greatest significance to note, in the evidence of PW 21, is that he has very clearly deposed that he had made the payments to Dwijen Thakuria and that he can identify Dwijen Thakuria's signature on the backside of the said cheque (i.e., Ext. 6) and, thus, the signature of accused Dwijen Thakuria has been proved by this witness as Ext. 6/4. 68. As regards Ext. 9, PW 21 has deposed that this cheque was passed by Bipin Das and he (PW 21) had signed this cheque after putting the seal 'cash paid, Ex. 9/1 is the signature of Bipin Das and Ext. 9(2) is the signature of PW 21 and that the payment was made to Dwijen Thakuria. PW 21 has identified and proved the signature of accused Dwijen Thakuria on the reverse side of this cheque as Ext. 9/3 and the cheque amount was below Rs. 20,000/-. 69. As regards Ext. 32, too, PW 21 has deposed that this cheque was passed by Ranjit Baruah and Kamal Devi, whose signatures have been identified by PW 21 as Ext. 32/1 and 32/2, respectively. According to the evidence of PW 21, after having put the seal 'cash paid, vide Ext. 32/3, he (PW 21) made the payment to accused Dwijen Thakuria. PW 21 has identified and proved the signature of accused Dwijen Thakuria on the reverse side of the cheque as Ext. 32/4. 70. 32/1 and 32/2, respectively. According to the evidence of PW 21, after having put the seal 'cash paid, vide Ext. 32/3, he (PW 21) made the payment to accused Dwijen Thakuria. PW 21 has identified and proved the signature of accused Dwijen Thakuria on the reverse side of the cheque as Ext. 32/4. 70. It is of vital importance to note, in the evidence of PW 21, that he knows Dwijen Thakuria as he was a regular customer of their bank and used to come to their bank regularly. 71. Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of PW 21 to show that what he had deposed were untrue or false. In fact, in his cross-examination, PW 21 has clarified that the cheque, presented by accused Dwijen Thakuria, was signed by him, Bipin Das and Ranjit Baruah. PW 21 has also clarified that Dwijen Thakuria and Bina Thakuria have separate accounts in the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch. 72. In the light of the evidence of PW 21, it goes beyond any shadow of doubt that it was accused-appellant, Dwijen Thakuria, who had withdrawn money from Bina Thakuria's account, where the cheque, issued by LICI, Mirza Branch, as a result of death claim of PW 22, had been deposited. 73. So far as PW 24 (Bina Thakuria) is concerned, she has deposed that she is a housewife and Phatik Thakuria (PW 22) is her husband. PW 24 has clarified that she has no knowledge either about her husband's LIC policies or about the fact that she was nominee in the said LIC policies. 74. What is important to note, in the evidence of PW 24, is that she has clearly deposed that she has had no bank account either in the Central Bank, Mirza Branch, or in any other bank. 75. Having gone through Ext. 21, which is the cheque, issued in the name of Bina Thakuria, in her saving bank account No. 9582, PW 24 has deposed that she does not know about the said cheque inasmuch as this cheque was never given to her, she never encashed the cheque and the amount, mentioned in the cheque, was never received by her. 76. As regards Ext. 7, PW 24 has deposed that the signature in the name of Bina Thakuria, on the said cheque, was not her signature and, similarly, the signatures, put on the cheques i.e., Ext. 76. As regards Ext. 7, PW 24 has deposed that the signature in the name of Bina Thakuria, on the said cheque, was not her signature and, similarly, the signatures, put on the cheques i.e., Ext. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, in the name of Bina Thakuria, are also not her signatures. 77. As regards Ext. 3, i.e., the specimen signature card, this witness has deposed that the signature, put on the specimen signature card, in the name of Bina Thakuria and the photographs, affixed thereto, are not her signature and/or her photographs. 78. As regards Ext. 2, i.e., the account opening form of the Central Bank of India, bearing account No. 9582, this witness (PW 24) has deposed that the signatures, put in the said account opening form, are not her signatures and the photographs, affixed thereto, are not her photographs. 79. It is of great importance to note that PW 24 has clearly deposed that she knows Dwijen Thakuria and Biswajit Das, because these persons had visited her house. This witness has also deposed that she never made any claim in respect of any LIC policy of her husband. 80. In her cross-examination, PW 24 has clarified that she does not recollect when Biswajit Das visited her husband, but she remembers that her husband asked her to give him a cup of tea. 81. Explaining as to why she had not stated in her previous statement, made under Section 161, that Dwijen Thakuria and Biswajit Das had come to her house, PW 24 has stated that she had not made any such statement before the police, because she was not asked any question in this regard. This assertion of PW 24 went unchallenged by the defence. 82. This assertion of PW 24 went unchallenged by the defence. 82. In the light of the above unshaken evidence of Bina Thakuria (PW 24), coupled with other evidence, which have been discussed above, the inference, which this Court has drawn above, gets strengthened that the account, which had been opened in the name of Bina Thakuria, at Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, was a fictitious account and that it was in this account that the cheque, which had been issued by the LICI, Mirza Branch, had been deposited and, it was from this account that money had been withdrawn by accused Dwijen Thakuria by presenting cheques of diverse sums of money and by putting forged signatures of Bina Thakuria in the cheques, so presented. 83. PW 16 is a person, who has deposed that Dwijen Thakuria's specimen signatures were taken, in his presence, at the office of the Central Bank of India and that Dwijen Thakuria gave his specimen signatures voluntarily and without any pressure. This witness has proved Exts. 22/1 to 22/6, consisting of 6 pages, as specimen signatures of Dwijen Thakuria. 84. Coming to the evidence of PW 14, who is Special Security Assistant, EPF, Regional Office, Guwahati, we notice that according to his evidence, he went, on 24.03.2005, to the office of CBI, Guwahati, on the instructions of his superior authority and, that on that day, specimen writings of Biswajit Das were taken in his (PW 14's) presence, on 72 sheets of papers. These signatures of accused Biswajit Das have been proved by this witness as Ext. 20(1) to Ext. 20(72). 85. PW 29, one of the Investigating Officers, has deposed that during investigation, it had come to light that accused Biswajit Das and Dwijen Thakuria had personally visited the residence of Phatik Thakuria, the policy holder of policy Nos. 480657491 and 481351823, and, on the pretext of upgradation of the policies, they had collected the original policy documents, premium payment receipts, etc, from Phatik Thakuria, but they never returned the policies to the policy holder. Later on, when Phatik Thakuria came to know from the Branch Manager, LICI, Mirza, about the said fact, he lodged a complaint. 86. 480657491 and 481351823, and, on the pretext of upgradation of the policies, they had collected the original policy documents, premium payment receipts, etc, from Phatik Thakuria, but they never returned the policies to the policy holder. Later on, when Phatik Thakuria came to know from the Branch Manager, LICI, Mirza, about the said fact, he lodged a complaint. 86. In the light of the evidence of PW 29, it is clear that the investigation, made by PW 29, revealed that Dwijen Thakuria had deposited the claim cheques, in respect of both the policies, in Central Bank of India in Account No. 9582. The said account, which comprises of account opening form, i.e., Ext. 3, and specimen signature card, i.e., Ext. 2, have found to have borne the handwriting of Dwijen Thakuria by PW 30, who is, as pointed out above, the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Kolkata, (in short, GEQD), and that the introducer of the account holder, in respect of the said account, was accused Dwijen Thakuria himself. 87. It is in the evidence of PW 29 that the claim cheque was found to have been deposited in the said account on 28.09.2000 and, thereafter, withdrawal was made, on 03.10.2000, for Rs.50,000, on 09.10.2000 for Rs.16,000/-, on 13.10.2000 for Rs.60,000/-, on 13.11.2000 for Rs.3,000/-, on 14.11.2000 for Rs.6000/- and on 16.10.2000, for Rs.30,000/- and that it was confirmed by the officials of the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, that Dwijen Thakuria had collected the money in respect of aforesaid cheques from the bank. 88. The Investigating Officer (PW 29) has also deposed that GEQD has proved that the signatures, on the cheques bearing the name of Smt. Bina Thakuria, were of Dwijen Thakuria. 89. PW 29 has also deposed that the handwriting expert has proved that the particulars, contained on the said cheques, other than the signatures put on behalf of the account holder, were all in the handwriting of accused Biswajit Das and that one Mithu Roy Choudhury (PW 17), an employee of LICI, Mirza Branch, had identified, as an independent witness, the handwriting of accused Biswajit Das on the six withdrawal cheques. 90. 90. In his cross-examination, PW 29 has clarified that the Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, during the relevant time, was asked by him (PW 29) and the Branch Manager had admitted that he had allowed the opening of the account and that though PW 29 had gone to the address, given in Ext. 2, (i.e., account opening form), he (PW 29) did not find the person concerned. PW 29 has also clarified that, as per Ext. 2, there were lapses, on the part of the bank authority, in opening of bank account inasmuch as the person, who opens an account, has to be present in the bank and has to put his signature before the bank Manager; but, in the present case, this was not done and, as such, CBI, upon investigation, recommended for departmental action against the erring bank officers. 91. PW 30 (Sri A.K. Singh) has deposed that in the year 2005, he was in the establishment of Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Kolkata (in short, GEQD), Asstt. GEQD and he very carefully, thoroughly and scientifically examined the original disputed documents relating to this case. On comparing with the relevant specimen writings of four persons and, on the basis of similarities and dissimilarities, PW 30 came to the following findings: (1) The person who wrote the blue inked signatures stamped and marked as S141 to S144 in Ext. 10 does not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked as Q 34, Q 37 in Ext. 9 Q.39, Q.40, Q.41, Q.46, Q.49 in Ext. 2, Q.51 in Ext. 21, Q.54 Q.55 in Ext. 4, Q.58, 59 in Ext. 5, Q.63, Q.64 in Ext. 7, Q.68, 69 IN Ext. 6, Q.73 in Ext. 8, Q.77 to 79 in Ext. 9. (2) The person who wrote the blue enclosed writing stamped and marked as S.72 to S.103 in Ext. 22 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked as Q33 to Q37 in Ext. 3, Q.38 to 41 in Ext. 2, Q.44 to 50 in Ext. 2, Q.51 in Ext. 21, Q.54 to 56 in Ext. 4, Q.58 to 61 in Ext. 5, Q.62/1 in Ext. 7, Q.63 to 66 also in Ext. 7, Q.68 to 70 in Ext. 6, Q.72 to Q.75 in Ext. 8, Q.77 to 81 in Ext. 9, Q.82 and 83 in Ext. 16 and Q.84 in Ext. 2, Q.51 in Ext. 21, Q.54 to 56 in Ext. 4, Q.58 to 61 in Ext. 5, Q.62/1 in Ext. 7, Q.63 to 66 also in Ext. 7, Q.68 to 70 in Ext. 6, Q.72 to Q.75 in Ext. 8, Q.77 to 81 in Ext. 9, Q.82 and 83 in Ext. 16 and Q.84 in Ext. 3. (3) The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked as S1 to S71 in Ext. 20 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked as Q.53 in Ext. 4, Q.57 in Ext. 5, Q.62 in Ext. 7, Q.67 in Ext. 6, Q.71 in Ext. 8 and Q.76 in Ext. 9. Ext. 41 is the report of PW 30 and Ext. 41/1 is his signature. 92. After completion of examination of the documents, opinion was sent to SP, CBI, ACB, vide letter No. DXC/321/2005/1502, dated 28.09.2005, which bears the signature of M.L. Sharma, the then GEQD, Kolkata, whose signature has been proved by PW 30 as Ext. 41/3. 93. By cross-examining PW 30, nothing could be elicited by the defence to show that his report is incorrect and/or cannot be relied upon. 94. The above discussion of the evidence on record brings me to the evidence of PW 7, who came to be posted to the Divisional Office of the LICI, Guwahati Division. According to the evidence of this witness, he was ordered by the then Senior Divisional Manager (PW 5), in September, 2003, to investigate the false death claims, which, according to the newspaper reports, had been made and insurance money realized. It is in the evidence of PW 7 that he had made investigation on two insurance policies, both in the name of Phatik Thakuria. It is also in the evidence of PW 7 that though he had been entrusted with the enquiry, he could not make any investigation, because the basic documents could not be furnished by LICI Office and, later on, B.J. Choudhury and A.K. Bhowmik had been entrusted by the Divisional Office to investigate into the matter and, accordingly, they had submitted their report. In terms of the said report, which PW 7 had gone through, Phatik Thakuria was alive, though his death claim had already been settled. 95. The above evidence of PW 7 remains undisputed in his cross-examination. 96. In terms of the said report, which PW 7 had gone through, Phatik Thakuria was alive, though his death claim had already been settled. 95. The above evidence of PW 7 remains undisputed in his cross-examination. 96. According to the evidence of PW 25, he was the Senior Divisional Manager, at the Divisional Office, Guwahati Division, of the LICI from May, 2002 to May, 2005. The evidence of this witness is that in the month of March, 2003, he came across a newspaper report regarding some fraudulent transactions at LICI, Mirza Branch, regarding death claims and, at the same time, an employee of the LICI reported to him that a person, whose death claim had been settled, appeared in the office and since he knew the person, people in the office got alarmed and that he (PW 25), thereafter, directed a preliminary enquiry by one of his officers and, upon enquiry, the officer reported that something wrong was going on at LICI, Mirza Branch, and, thereafter, he (PW 25) directed two other officers to go through all the cases of fraudulent payments made by the LICI, Mirza Branch. 97. PW 25 has explained that there are two types of death claims in LICI. One is early claim and the other is non-early or normal claim. When death of the policy holder occurs within two years from the date of commencement of the policy, then, it is called early claim and the early death claims are on their watch list. 98. According to the evidence of PW 25, when he received the full enquiry report, he found that people, other than employees of the LICI, were also involved in fraudulent death claims and the payments made in respect thereof and he, therefore, in consultation with the Chief Vigilance Officer of LICI, lodged a complaint with the CBI, the said complaint being Ext. 34. PW 25 has identified his signature, on the second page of the said complaint, as Ext. 34/1. 99. According to the evidence of PW 15, he worked as an Assistant Administrative Officer at LICI, Mirza Branch, from October, 1997, to October, 2002. This witness has given, in detail, the procedure to be followed for settling the claim of the sum of money assured under any insurance policy. This witness has deposed that Ext. 34/1. 99. According to the evidence of PW 15, he worked as an Assistant Administrative Officer at LICI, Mirza Branch, from October, 1997, to October, 2002. This witness has given, in detail, the procedure to be followed for settling the claim of the sum of money assured under any insurance policy. This witness has deposed that Ext. 21 is a cheque of the Central Bank of India, dated 28-09-2000, for an amount of Rs. 1,67,583/- issued in favour of Bina Thakuria, her Account No. being 9582 of the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, which, we have already indicated above, is a forged and fictitious account. 100. In his evidence, PW 15 has clarified that having gone through all the documents, cheques were issued to Smt. Bina Thakuria and that the same were handed over to Kameswar Boro, Branch Manager, LICI, Mirza Branch. This witness has expressed his ignorance by saying that he does not know the person to whom Kameswar Boro handed over the said cheque. This witness has also clarified that they issued the said cheque, in good faith, without verifying the original signature, which had been put in the LICI policy. This witness has further clarified that Bina Thakuria did not come to him personally to collect the said cheque and that he did not know her and that after disbursement of the cheque, the docket file of the relevant insurance policy was kept in the safe custody of the Policy Servicing Department. There was neither any effective cross-examination of PW 15 nor was his evidence, on material aspects, was denied. 101. PW 17 has deposed that he joined the LICI, Mirza Branch, in May, 2007, and was posted in Death Claim Section of the said Branch. This witness has described the procedure for settlement of death claim in terms of the LICI manual. 102. In his cross-examination, PW 17 has clarified that he has known Biswajit Das as Development Officer, LICI, Mirza Branch, and he is acquainted with the handwriting of Biswajit Das, because he worked with Biswajit Das. After going through the cheques, i.e., Exts. 4 to 9, PW 17 has deposed that all these cheques were written by accused Biswajit Das. 103. In fact, it is of immense importance to note that accused Biswajit Das has not even denied that Exts. 4 to 9 are in his handwritings. 104. After going through the cheques, i.e., Exts. 4 to 9, PW 17 has deposed that all these cheques were written by accused Biswajit Das. 103. In fact, it is of immense importance to note that accused Biswajit Das has not even denied that Exts. 4 to 9 are in his handwritings. 104. Situated thus, it becomes more than abundantly clear that accused-appellant, Biswajit Das, was the one, who had filled up the bearer cheques, in question, namely, Exts. 4 to 9, which were shown to have been issued by Bina Thakuria (PW 24) and that all these cheques were forged ones and, on the strength of these cheques, diverse sums of money had been withdrawn by accused Dwijen Thakuria. 105. The explanation of accused Biswajit Das, as regards writing of the said cheques, is that accused Dwijen Thakuria approached him with the said cheques and as accused Dwijen Thakuria's hand was trembling, he filled up the said cheques. In his cross-examination, on behalf of accused Biswajit Das, this witness (PW 17) has further claimed that he knows the handwriting of Biswajit Das. 106. What is important to note in the evidence of PW 17 is that according to him, all the cheques (Exts. 4 to 9), were issued by a person, in the name of Bina Thakuria, and the amounts, mentioned in the cheques, were received by Bina Thakuria and Dwijen Thakuria and that all these cheques were issued as self or bearer cheques. 107. The evidence of PW 19 is that Kameswar Boro, the then Branch Manager, LICI, Mirza Branch, had taken from this witness (PW 19) the dispatch register, but, thereafter, Kameswar Boro never returned the dispatch register and, in this regard, he (PW 19) wrote a letter to Kameswar Boro. It is the evidence of PW 10 that he had sent the cheque of Bina Thakuria by registered post with AD, but he never saw the acknowledgement receipt thereof and that he does not recollect or know whether Bina Thakuria received the cheque or not. 108. What emerges from the discussion of the evidence on record is that the two accused-appellants, namely, Dwijen Thakuria and Biswajit Das, went to the house of Phatik Thakuria and took away his two insurance policies along with the premium payment receipts on the pretext of upgrading the said policies, wherein Bina Thakuria (PW 24) was the nominee. 108. What emerges from the discussion of the evidence on record is that the two accused-appellants, namely, Dwijen Thakuria and Biswajit Das, went to the house of Phatik Thakuria and took away his two insurance policies along with the premium payment receipts on the pretext of upgrading the said policies, wherein Bina Thakuria (PW 24) was the nominee. Thereafter, accused-appellant, Dwijen Thakuria, fraudulently obtained death certificate, in the name of Phatik Thakuria, in the manner as I have discussed above, and, on the basis of the claim, so raised, projecting Phatik Thakuria as having died, the claim was passed and a cheque was issued in the name of Smt. Bina Thakuria (i.e., the nominee of Phatik Thakuria in respect of the said two insurance policies), which was deposited in the fictitious account of Bina Thakuria (PW 24), who had no knowledge about the said account, the said account having been opened at the Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch, by accused Dwijen Thakuria and, in this regard, accused Dwijen Thakuria had acted as the introducer of the person, whom the two accused-appellants had projected as Bina Thakuria. Following the opening of the account and, on the cheque, issued by the LICI, having been deposited therein, cheques of various sums of money were shown to have been issued by Bina Thakuria and the amounts, covered by the cheques, were withdrawn by the accused-appellant, Dwijen Thakuria, and that all the said cheques were filled up by the accused-appellant, Biswajit Das. 109. There is, thus, overwhelming evidence on record fastening the accused-appellant, Biswajit Das, in the offence of criminal conspiracy and the offence of criminal misconduct. 110. Considering the fact that the accused-appellant, Biswajit Das, was a public servant, who was also liable for punishment, learned trial Court has rightly convicted him under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Though accused-appellant, Dwijen Thakuria, has adduced evidence to show that he was not LICI agent, the fact of the matter remains that the evidence on record reveals that his wife was an agent of the LICI and he, admittedly, worked on behalf of his wife, and the people generally knew him as an agent of LICI. 111. Though Mr. Though accused-appellant, Dwijen Thakuria, has adduced evidence to show that he was not LICI agent, the fact of the matter remains that the evidence on record reveals that his wife was an agent of the LICI and he, admittedly, worked on behalf of his wife, and the people generally knew him as an agent of LICI. 111. Though Mr. P. Bora, learned counsel, appearing for the accused-appellant, has submitted that accused-appellant, Biswajit Das, has explained the circumstances, whereunder he happened to fill up the cheques, and has relied on the decisions, rendered in the case of Baiju Baby and Ors. vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., reported in 2009(1) GLT 405, and Jayanta Kalai and Ors. vs. State of Tripura, reported in 2013(2) GLT 450, it is noteworthy that the evidence, which has been adduced against accused-appellant, Biswajit Das, remained unshaken and, in the face of such unshaken evidence, his explanation, that the he merely filled up the cheques, in question, does not hold water, particularly, when accused-appellant, Biswajit Das, miserably fails to shake the evidence to the effect that he, along with accused, Dwijen Thakuria, had gone to the house of Phatik Thakuria and took away Phatik Thakuria's two insurance policies, wherein Bina Thakuria (PW 24) was nominee, on the pretext of upgrading the policies, and never returned the policies and it was the sum, assured under the said two policies, which came to be deposited in the fictitious account of Bina Thakuria, opened by Dwijen Thakuria, and the cheques were written by none other than accused-appellant, Biswajit Das, for the purpose of withdrawing the money and the money was accordingly withdrawn from the said account by accused-appellant Dwijen Thakuria. 112. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not notice any infirmity, legal or factual, in the findings of guilt, reached against the two accused-appellant by the learned trial Court. The impugned conviction as well as the sentences, which have been passed against accused-appellant by the judgment, under appeal, do not, therefore, call for any interference in appeal. 113. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, both the appeals fail and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 114. The bail bonds of the two accused-appellants are hereby cancelled and their sureties are discharged. 113. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, both the appeals fail and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 114. The bail bonds of the two accused-appellants are hereby cancelled and their sureties are discharged. Both the accused-appellants are hereby directed to surrender, forthwith, in the Court of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati, for the purpose of undergoing the sentences of imprisonment passed against them. Send back the LCR. Appeal dismissed.