1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 14.07.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, convicting the appellant for the commission of offences under Sections 420 and 463 RPC, and the order of sentencing dated 16.07.2012 awarding simple imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 10,000.00 for the commission of offence under Section 420 RPC; two years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000.00 each for the commission of offences under Sections 463 and 471 RPC. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been ordered to undergo a further simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 420 RPFC and six months for each of the offences under Sections 463/471 RPC. 2. The grounds of appeal taken in the memo of appeal are that out of the 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution in the Challan, only ten were examined by it at the trial and the most important witnesses, namely, Mr. K. K. Matoo, Chief Engineer Electric Planning and Designing; Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, complainant, who had lodged the FIR against the appellant; Mr. Ifadul Mujtaba, SP, Headquarter (VOK); and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Constable, were not produced and examined; therefore, the presumption would be that they would not have supported the prosecution. It is stated that the witnesses examined by the prosecution in their depositions have not stated anything against the appellant and that the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant purely on the basis of suspicion. It is also stated in the memo of appeal that there was no material produced by the prosecution during the course of trial which could connect the appellant with the commission of the crime, but the trial Judge, on a fanciful logic, convicted and sentenced the appellant on the plea that the case had to end either in conviction or acquittal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. 4. I may at the very outset say that the impugned judgment is totally perfunctory and perverse. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. 4. I may at the very outset say that the impugned judgment is totally perfunctory and perverse. The prosecution case before the trial court was this: That on 05.08.2002, PW2, Shri Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Superintending Engineer, Electrical Planning and Design Circle, Srinagar, lodged a written report to the effect that the accused named in the challan had tampered with and changed the date of birth recorded in his service book/service record from 03.08.1936 to 03.08.1940. According to the date of birth of the accused, he had to retire on 31.08.1994, but he continued in service upto 31.03.1997 and has drawn his salary continuously from 01.09.1994 to 31.03.1997. It was alleged that the accused had been the sole custodian of his service book throughout the period he had remained posted in the Circle and he had submitted the service book in August 2000. During the course of investigation it was revealed that the accused had tampered with his service book and initially changed his date of birth from 03.08.1936 to 03.08.1940 and then again tampered with it reversing the entries from 03.08.1940 to 03.08.1936. It was alleged that the accused by overstaying in service had drawn salary to the tune of Rs.1,58,920.00. During the course of investigation the photocopy of the Matriculation certificate of the accused recording his date of birth as 03.08.1940 was got verified from the Board of School Education and they reported that as per records his date of birth was recorded as 03.08.1936. On the aforesaid report, case FIR no.43/2002 was registered and, after completion of the investigation, challan under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/201 RPC was presented before the Court. 5. The accused was charge sheeted on 22.06.2006 for the commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/201 RPC to which he pleaded not guilty. 6. On the aforesaid report, case FIR no.43/2002 was registered and, after completion of the investigation, challan under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/201 RPC was presented before the Court. 5. The accused was charge sheeted on 22.06.2006 for the commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/201 RPC to which he pleaded not guilty. 6. At the trial of the case, the prosecution examined PW12, Altaf Ahmed, Incharge Scientific Officer, FSL, Srinagar; PW1, Muhammad Mushtaq Bhat, Inspector Crime Branch; PW3, Ghulam Muhammad Bhat, Senior Clerk, Circle Bagat; PW4, Ali Muhammad Kaw, employee of Electric Circle; PW11, Farooq Ahmad Zaroo, Senior Assistant, Electric Planning Division Circle, Srinagar; PW6, Constable Syed Irshad Ahmad no.720/CR; PW9, Kifayat Hussain, Assistant Secretary, Board of School Education, Srinagar; PW10, Professor Nazir Ahmad Shah, Joint Secretary, Board of School Education, Srinagar; PW14, Sharief-ud-Din, ASI, Crime, Kashmir; PW13, Hamid-Ullah Shah, Scientific Assistant, FSL, Srinagar. 7. Four witnesses, namely, PW2, Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Superintending Engineer, Electric Planning Division Circle, Srinagar, the complainant; PW5 Constable Mushtaq Ahmad no.99/CR, P/S Crime Branch, Srinagar; PW7, Nazir Ahmad Makhdoomi, Senior Assistant, Electric Planning Division Circle, Srinagar; and PW8 Constable Farooq Ahmad no.583/CR though listed in the challan, were not produced. 8. The learned trial court, at page 11 of the impugned judgment, has recorded a finding to the following effect: "All the witnesses have deposed before the court in clear cut terms that the date of birth of the alleged accused has been changed from 03.08.1936 to 03.08.1940 and due to change of date of birth the accused person has remained in service and drive (sic) the illegal benefits by charting the government." And at page 12 of the judgment the learned trial court has recorded as under: "In the considered opinion the ingredients of Section 467, 468 are not made out. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing the offence under Section 420, 463 RPFC for which the punishment is prescribed in Section 465, as all the witnesses supported the prosecution story and needle of committing the crime pinpoints the alleged accused person. No person would ordinarily tempering (sic) the record of any other person without any consideration and it was only the alleged accused person who could drive (sic) the benefit by remaining in service due to alternation (sic) in the date of birth and no other person could not (sic) be benefited from it. The citations referred by the Ld. No person would ordinarily tempering (sic) the record of any other person without any consideration and it was only the alleged accused person who could drive (sic) the benefit by remaining in service due to alternation (sic) in the date of birth and no other person could not (sic) be benefited from it. The citations referred by the Ld. Counsel for the accused does not support the arguments or support the case of defence. The case against the accused is of criminal nature and nobody is recovering the amount drawn by accused while in service. The case has to end in either conviction or acquittal. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case accused is held guilty for commission of aforesaid offences and convicted..." 9. As mentioned above, the convict was charge sheeted for the commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/201 RPC. The learned trial court, as quoted above, has held that offences under Section 467 and 468 RPC have not been proved. The convict has been held guilty for the commission of offences under Sections 420 and 463 RPC. 10. It may be observed here that there is no direct evidence to connect the convict with the commission of the offence of forgery. The whole case hinged on the testimony of the handwriting Expert, PW13, Hamid Ullah Shah. PW12, Altaf Ahmad, Incharge Scientific Officer, FSL, Srinagar, has not himself examined the questioned documents. He has only countersigned the report prepared by PW13, Hamid-Ullah Shah, Scientific Assistant, FSL, Srinagar. The evidence of the other witnesses, of course, is material, but, it is the FSL Handwriting Expert's opinion that becomes material. Before coming to his evidence, I deem it appropriate to give a brief resume of the testimony of other witnesses. 11. PW1, Muhammad Mushtaq Bhat, Inspector Crime Branch, in his deposition before the trial court has stated that the complaint of Electric Planning and Design Circle was received by him through Headquarter Crime and SSP, Crime, Kashmir for verification. In the complaint it was alleged that Shri Abdul Rehman Manroo, accused had tampered with the service record and certificate of date of birth. The actual date of birth of the accused was 03.08.1936 but he had overwritten/tampered it to make it as 03.08.1940. In the complaint it was alleged that Shri Abdul Rehman Manroo, accused had tampered with the service record and certificate of date of birth. The actual date of birth of the accused was 03.08.1936 but he had overwritten/tampered it to make it as 03.08.1940. The accused was supposed to retire in the year 1994, but he remained in service upto 31.08.1997 and in this manner he overstayed in the service and caused loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000.00. He obtained photocopy of the front page of the Service Book from the concerned Electrical Circle as also a photocopy of the certificate from the accused. The certificate got verified by the concerned authorities of the Board of School Education who reported that the actual date of birth of the accused was 03.06.1936. 12. PW3, Ghulam Muhammad Bhat, Senior Clerk, Circle Bagat, has stated that he produced the service record of the accused before the Crime Branch. 13. PW4, Ali Muhammad Kaw, employee of Electric Circle, has stated that until the start of militancy the service records of the office used to be in the custody of Makhan Lal and Nazir Ahmad Wani. Thereafter, the accused was the custodian of the said records. 14. PW11, Farooq Ahmad Zaroo, Senior Assistant, Electric Planning Division Circle, Srinagar, has stated that on account of accident his memory has been affected. 15. PW6, Constable Syed Irshad Ahmad no.720/CR is a witness to seizure memo EXPW4. 16. PW9, Kifayat Hussain, Assistant Secretary, Board of School Education, Srinagar, has stated that he was working as Assistant Secretary Verifications. Letter was received from Chief Engineer, Electric Department which was about verification of the date of birth of accused Abdul Rehman Manroo. He verified the record. The date of birth had been changed from 1936 to 1940. 17. PW10, Professor Nazir Ahmad Shah, Joint Secretary, Board of School Education, Srinagar, has deposed that Board of School Education received a letter alongwith photocopy of Matriculation certificate of accused Abdul Rehman Manroo for verification. On verification it. was found that his date of birth in the record was recorded as 03.08.1936 when in the photocopy it was written as 03.08.1940. 18. PW14, Sharief-ud-Din, ASI, Crime, Kashmir, has deposed about the steps of investigation. 19. On verification it. was found that his date of birth in the record was recorded as 03.08.1936 when in the photocopy it was written as 03.08.1940. 18. PW14, Sharief-ud-Din, ASI, Crime, Kashmir, has deposed about the steps of investigation. 19. From the aforesaid statements it is clear that none of the witnesses have deposed that the accused had tampered with the date of birth recorded in his service book to change it from 03.08.1936 to 03.08.1940. What is instead proved is that, as per the records of the Board of School Education, the actual date of birth of the accused-convict was 03.08.1936. 20. In an endeavour to prove the above specific allegation that the date of birth in the service book had been changed from 03.08.1936 to 03.08.1940 and that it had been tampered with by the accused, the Service Book of the accused was sent to FSL, Srinagar, for Examination and opinion. The entries recorded on the front page of the Service Book containing the name, designations, residence, date of birth of the accused with other particulars, were encircled in red and marked as Ql. The date of birth written in figures therein was encircled in red and marked as Q2, The date of birth written in words appears to have been encircled in red and marked as Q3. Apart from that, certain documents written by the accused, probably, in the routine course of official business, were encircled blue and marked from Al to A5. These documents were also sent to the FSL for opinion as the admitted hand writing of the accused for the comparison thereof with the writings in the questioned document marked Ql, Q2 and Q3. 21. The aforesaid documents were examined by PW13, Hamid-Ullah Shah, Scientific Assistant, FSL, Srinagar. The said witness in his deposition before the trial court has stated that the documents Ql, Q2 and Q3 were examined under Ultra violet light rays and stereoscopic microscope detected chemical eraser. There was different tint of ink between existing as well as remnant of original writing. In respect of the questioned item marked Q1 , figures at units and tens place in date of birth column had been over-written on the previously written figures "0 (Zero)" and "4 (four)". There was different tint of ink between existing as well as remnant of original writing. In respect of the questioned item marked Q1 , figures at units and tens place in date of birth column had been over-written on the previously written figures "0 (Zero)" and "4 (four)". The red enclosed portion of questioned item marked Q2 in the words column of date of birth revealed that the word "thirty" had been over written on the word "forty" and the word "six" had been written over the word "as". Final opinion of this case was that all the original words were overwritten by word "36". The witness has proved his report made in that behalf, marked EXP13. 22. It transpires from the aforesaid statement and the written report of the FSL Expert that the originally written figure "40" had been changed to "36"; the word "forty" had been changed to "thirty" and word "as" had been changed to "six". That means, originally the date of birth as recorded at Q2 was "3.8.1940" and at mark Q3 it was "forty" and, by tampering, the entries had been changed to "3.8.1936" and "thirty six". 23. The above position is further clarified in the report EXP 13 of the aforesaid Expert witness. It is stated therein that "Examination of the questioned items in the red enclosed portion marked Ql, Q2 and Q3 under Ultra-violet light rays and stereoscopic microscope reveals marks of chemical eraser. However, it could not be possible to decipher the erased original wrings successfully, though the remanents of some strokes of the original writings are visible (Photograph marked Q1 is enclosed". Similarly, the photograph of Q2 has also been enclosed with the report. 24. The aforesaid photographs are on record. These photographs prominently show the date of birth recorded in figures as "3.8.1936" and "thirty six". The figures which are alleged to have been erased are not visible. In any case, the Expert opinion, relied upon by the trial court, establishes that it is not that "3.8.1936" has been changed to "3.8.1940", but the fact comes to be other way round that "3.8.1940" has been changed to "3.8.1936". In fact, the service book on record also records the date of birth of the petitioner as "3.8.1936". 25. In any case, the Expert opinion, relied upon by the trial court, establishes that it is not that "3.8.1936" has been changed to "3.8.1940", but the fact comes to be other way round that "3.8.1940" has been changed to "3.8.1936". In fact, the service book on record also records the date of birth of the petitioner as "3.8.1936". 25. The prosecution case before the trial court was that the convict had changed his recorded date of birth from 3.8.1936 to 3.8.1940 and then again to 3.8.1936. There is no evidence on record to establish that the original tampering whereby the date of birth had been changed from 3.8.1936 to 3.8.1940 had been done by the accused. In fact, the Expert witness, PW13, has in his report clearly stated that it could not be possible to decipher the erased original writings successfully. In order to establish that allegation, the prosecution appears to have made an endeavour to correlate the circumstance that Matriculation certificate of the convict, which recorded the date of birth as 3.8.1940, which, too, had been found to have been tampered, with the tampering done in the service book. But that certificate has not been sent to the Finger Print Expert for examination or opinion. In fact, that certificate has neither been produced nor proved before the Court. The allegation against the convict was specific: that he had tampered with the date of birth in the Service Book from 3.8.1936 to 3.8.1940 and, thereby, had managed to overstay in service, causing loss to the Government. Instead of proving so, the record in the shape of the Service Book, the report made by the FSL Expert, including the photographs, and the deposition of the Expert witness made before the trial court, do not support the prosecution case. Instead, these demolish the prosecution case inasmuch as these show that the date of birth, which was originally recorded as "3.8.1940" had been changed to "3.8.1936" and "forty" together with the word "as" had been changed to "thirty six". It is not comprehendible why would an employee change his date of birth increasing his age and how would such a tampering result in his overstaying in service. It is one thing to say that the accused had changed his date of birth from 3.8.1936 to 3.8.1940 and another thing to prove that it had been changed from 3.8.1940 to 3.8.1936. It is one thing to say that the accused had changed his date of birth from 3.8.1936 to 3.8.1940 and another thing to prove that it had been changed from 3.8.1940 to 3.8.1936. There is not even an iota of evidence to substantiate that the convict had changed the date of birth from 3.8.1936 to 3.8.1940. All that is proved is that 3.8.1940 has been changed to 3.8.1936 which admittedly is the actual date of birth of the convict. 26. In light of the aforesaid facts, the learned trial court has not correctly appreciated the Expert evidence and the report made by the FSL Expert. It is true that the Expert evidence has established that the entry 3.8.1940 has been changed to 3.8.1936, but it is not established that it was the accused who had made the original tampering changing 3.8.1936 to 3.8.1940. Though the trial court has relied on the said Expert evidence, but has failed to appreciate it. In fact, the Expert opinion removes the earth underneath the prosecution story. 27. Even if it be assumed that the accused had overwritten on the front page of his Service Book, but there is nothing false in the information that is contained therein. As mentioned above, it is the positive case of the prosecution that the actual date of birth of the accused was 3.8.1936. Section 463 RPC for which the accused has been held to be guilty and convicted, says, "whoever makes any false document". The prosecution has itself proved by evidence that the front page of the service book overwritten by the accused contains the date of birth as 3.8.1936 and that is not false, rather is admitted to the actual date of birth of the accused. Therefore, the accused could not be held guilty for the offence under Section 463 RPC. 28. There is also not even an iota of evidence that the accused had cheated or dishonestly induced any one, muchless his officer, on the basis of the said date of birth. The complainant, who was the officer of the accused, has not come in the witness box. Thus, the FIR has not been proved. 28. There is also not even an iota of evidence that the accused had cheated or dishonestly induced any one, muchless his officer, on the basis of the said date of birth. The complainant, who was the officer of the accused, has not come in the witness box. Thus, the FIR has not been proved. It is he who could have shed light as to in what manner he was cheated or dishonestly induced by the accused to continue him in service and that thereby the accused had been successful in getting his salaries during the months he had allegedly overstayed his service. 29. Now, it is a fact that the accused had overstayed in service beyond the actual date of his retirement. But that fact by itself would not be a proof of the charges levelled against him. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that the original tampering in the Service Book of the accused-convict had been done by him, I am of the considered opinion that the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 463 RPC are not proved. Consequently, the impugned judgment convicting the appellant under the said provisions of the Penal Code is not sustainable. 30. In light of the above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 14.07.2012 convicting the appellant and the order of sentence dated 16.07.2012 are set aside. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the charges. The bail bonds shall stand discharged. 31. Registry to remit the trial court records forthwith.