ORDER : S. Vimala, J. The Inspector of Police-Marimuthu, Sub-Inspector of Police Selvi-M. Meemanbigai, Head Constable-M. Rajasekaran and one Dhanushkodi, were the four accused persons in C.C.No.41 of 2011 before the Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. 2. The first accused was acquitted of the charges under Sections 120B, 166, 218, 204 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the fourth accused was acquitted of the charges under Sections 204, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The revision petitioners were acquitted of the charges under Sections 120B and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, but were found guilty under Sections 166, 218, 204 and 465 of Indian Penal Code (Crime No. 1659 of 2005) and a sentence of 6 months imprisonment was imposed in respect of each of the offences, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. As against the acquittal of A-1 and A-4, in respect of all offences, and as against the acquittal of A-2 and A-3 both under Sections 120B and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no appeal. 5. As against the judgment of conviction, the second and third accused filed the appeal before the District Court, Dindigul in Crl. A.No. 62 of 2012 and the appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 26.03.2013. Challenging the same, this revision petition has been filed. 6. The main grounds of revision are: (a) The revision petitioners are public servants and as the occurrence is said to have taken place in discharge of their official duty, without prior permission of the competent authority, the prosecution initiated is illegal (as contemplated under Section 197 Cr.PC). (b) When the charge is only under Section 471 IPC, the conviction under Section 465 IPC is illegal, in the absence of charge under Section 465 IPC. (c) When the prosecution relied upon same set of evidence against all the accused persons, and when the allegations are primarily against A-1, the acquittal of A-1 and the conviction of A-2 and A-3 (revision petitioners) are illegal. (c) When the prosecution relied upon same set of evidence against all the accused persons, and when the allegations are primarily against A-1, the acquittal of A-1 and the conviction of A-2 and A-3 (revision petitioners) are illegal. (d) The finding of the conviction is based on no evidence and hence the perverse finding is unsustainable; the case of P.W.1 is that on 23.05.2005, at 12.10 a.m., when he was taking treatment at Apollo Hospital, Madurai, the accused No.3 came and recorded the statement from him; but in the evidence of the Doctor it is stated that the defacto complainant / P.W.1 was treated as out-patient in the hospital and therefore, the finding is a perverse finding. 7. In order to appreciate whether the finding is perverse and if so, the extent to which the judgment of the Court below can be said to be perverse, it is necessary to look into the basic facts of the case. 8. Brief facts: On 25.05.2005 at about 7.30 a.m., at Madurai Anna Nagar East Street, the defacto complainant-Sankaranarayanan was fetching water from the lorry. Claiming that the defacto complainant fetched excess water, the fourth accused Dhanushkodi questioned it. In continuation of the same, the fourth accused used abusive language against the defacto complainant and he caught hold of the neck and had bitten the thumb of the defacto complainant and thereby caused injuries. The defacto complainant took treatment at Apollo Hospital and while he was on treatment, he preferred a complaint stating that the fourth accused attempted to commit murder punishable under Section 307 IPC and after signing it and getting it attested by one Ashok, he gave it to Head Constable Rajasekaran. The Head Constable Rajasekaran, in conspiracy with rest of the accused persons, destroyed the complaint given by the defacto complainant and with an intention to relieve the accused from the clutches of Section 307 IPC, they fabricated a false complaint implicating the accused only under Sections 294B and 323 IPC and thereby they have committed offences under Sections 120B, 166, 218, 204 and 471 IPC. 9. In order to substantiate the offences against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses and marked 35 documents. 9. In order to substantiate the offences against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses and marked 35 documents. The accused persons (A-2 and A-3), the revision petitioners herein, though acquitted of the charges under Sections 120B and 471 of IPC, they are found guilty under Sections 166, 218, 204 and 465 of IPC. 10. It is contended that when the accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 471 IPC, he cannot be convicted for charge under Section 465 IPC. Further contention is that when all the accused persons have been acquitted of the charge under Section 120B IPC and when the conspiracy is stated to be towards fabrication of false documents, the conviction under Sections 166, 218 and 204 IPC are unsustainable. 11. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to look into the ingredients to be established to prove the offences under Sections 166, 204, 218 and 465 IPC. 12. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 120B IPC are as follows: (1) An agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence; (2) In doing so the accused either did or caused to be done: (I) an illegal act, or (ii) an act, which is not itself illegal, by illegal means; (3) Such an act done or caused to be done was an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code; (4) If the act so done was not an offence then an overt act had been done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. 13. Section 120B of IPC reads as under: 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.- (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. 14. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. 14. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 166 IPC are as follows: (1) Accused is a public servant; (2) He disobeyed any express direction of law; (3) He disobeyed it knowingly; (4) He knew or he intended that it would cause injury or was likely to cause injury to others. 15. Section 166 of IPC reads as under: 166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.-Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 16. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 204 IPC are as follows: (1) The accused secreted or destroyed the document or electronic record or obliterated or rendered illegible in whole or in part of such document or electronic record; (2) The accused was legally bound to produce the same as evidence in a court of justice or in any proceedings lawfully held by a public servant; (3) The accused did so after he has been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for the said purpose. 17. Section 204 of IPC reads as under: 204. 17. Section 204 of IPC reads as under: 204. Destruction of document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence.- Whoever secretes or destroys any document or electronic record which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court of Justice, or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant, as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such document or electronic record with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 18. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 218 IPC are as follows: (1) Accused was a public servant; (2) He was entrusted with preparation of any record or writing in his capacity as a public servant; (3) He framed the record or writing incorrectly; (4) He did it intentionally; (5) He did so with the intention or knowledge that it will - (a) cause loss or injury to someone; (b) save any person from legal punishment; and (c) save some property from forfeiture or other charges. 19. Section 218 of IPC reads as under: 218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.- Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 20. 20. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 465 IPC are as follows: (1) The accused prepared a false document or electronic record; (2) He did it with false meaning of written instrument for the purpose of fraud or deceit; (3) The document or electronic record was prepared dishonestly or fraudulently; (4) He did it with the intention of causing wrongful gain to someone and wrongful loss to another. 21. Section 465 of IPC reads as under: 465. Punishment for forgery.-Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 22. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 471 IPC are as follows: (1) The accused fraudulently or dishonestly used a document or electronic record as genuine; (2) The accused knew or had reason to believe that the document or electronic record was a forged one. 23. Section 471 of IPC reads as under: 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.-Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record. 24. Using a document as genuine, when the document is known to be a forged document, is the gravamen of the offence under Section 471 IPC. It is not material whether the original document was first forged and then its copy was used as genuine or whether the copy used was a false document. What this section requires is the use as genuine of any document which is known or believed to be a forged document; the language of Section 471 most obviously suggest that this provision is expressly directed against some person other than the forger himself. The reason for the presence of Section 471 IPC on the statute book in the somewhat unusual language which is employed therein, is in order to provide an useful alternative charge in cases where there is uncertainty as to whether the person on trial is himself the forger of the document or has merely used it as genuine, knowing it to be nothing of the sort. 25. 25. Therefore, the contention that in the absence of charge under Section 465 IPC, the prosecution under Section 471 IPC is not maintainable, is not correct and it cannot be accepted. 26. So far as the charge of conspiracy is concerned, the conspiracy to commit an offence itself is an offence and a person can be separately charged with regard to such a conspiracy, irrespective of the fact as to whether the offence in respect of which there was conspiracy did actually happen or did not happen. 26.1. The conspiracy to commit an offence is itself punishable as a substantive offence under Section 120B IPC. So a person can be separately charged with respect to such a conspiracy. Section 120B prescribes punishment for criminal conspiracy which by itself is an independent offence punishable separately from the main offence. Conspirators committing offences pursuant to conspiracy by indulging in various overt acts would be independently liable for those offences in addition to the offence of criminal conspiracy. Therefore, the contention that once a person is acquitted of the charge under Section 120B IPC, he must be acquitted of the connected charge, does not merit acceptance. 27. The case of the defacto complainant is that in the complaint, which was recorded by Head Constable-Rajasekar, he had mentioned that, the accused caught hold of his throat and while making an attempt to bite, he had bitten the finger and this fact was found omitted in the complaint filed before the Court and therefore, the accused is guilty of fabrication of false document. This fabrication is stated to have taken place only with an intention to aid the accused (Crime No.1173 of 2005) to save himself from the clutches of Section 307 IPC. 27.1. The main contention is that the object of fabrication is to relieve the accused from the clutches of the provisions of Section 307 IPC. Whether the alleged intention could be correct and whether that was the only way out to do that? In other words, when there are ways legally available to save the accused, whether the police armed with legal brain would have resorted to the illegal method of fabricating the false documents. It is not as if that there was no other way out to relieve the accused from the clutches of Section 307 IPC. In other words, when there are ways legally available to save the accused, whether the police armed with legal brain would have resorted to the illegal method of fabricating the false documents. It is not as if that there was no other way out to relieve the accused from the clutches of Section 307 IPC. Even if the case is registered under Section 307 IPC, at a later point of time, after investigation, it is always open to the police to make the accused accountable to a lesser offence also. It is equally open to them to close the complaint as mistake of fact. Therefore, when too many options are available to help the accused, if at all, and if really the police officers wanted to help the accused, when it is easy to render the help legally, it is highly improbable that they should have chosen to fabricate the complaint. From the sequence of events, as narrated, the probability appears to be that just because the accused was immediately released on bail, as an afterthought, there is an allegation that the original complaint itself would attract the offence under Section 307 IPC and that complaint has been fabricated to make it as a lesser offence. 28. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of the handwriting expert and the evidence of P.W.5-Karuppaiah. In the evidence of Karuppaiah, who was working as Head Constable at Madurai Anna Nagar Police Station, it is stated that he was on permission to be 'off duty' on 25.05.2005 and when he returned to the Police Station to take the prescription of his mother, he was requested by the accused Rajasekaran, informing him that the complaint brought by Rajasekar, by recording the statement of Sankaranarayanan, makes out an offence under Section 307 IPC, but it should have been registered to the extent of attracting only simple offences and therefore, it should be modified as directed by the Inspector of Police and requested Karuppaiah to put the signature as Sankaranarayanan (towards fabrication). P.W.5 further states that, as it was instructed by the Inspector of Police, he signed as Sankaranarayanan (in the complaint written and brought by Rajasekaran). He has also given statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC. P.W.5 further states that, as it was instructed by the Inspector of Police, he signed as Sankaranarayanan (in the complaint written and brought by Rajasekaran). He has also given statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC. The question is whether P.W.5 is the accused / witness or whether he could be treated as a witness, especially when he himself admits that it is he, who forged the signature, though instructed by the Inspector of Police, despite he being a person with legal knowledge. 29. P.W.5 is the Police Official. It is not as if he is a rustic unlettered man who signed the complaint without knowing the contents and without knowing the implications of signing such a complaint, forging the signature of somebody else. Though P.W.5 is lower in rank than that of the Inspector, still he is not under a liability or duty to obey the illegal orders of the superior. He ought to have refused to do so especially when he was a police officer who was under a duty to investigate the offences alleged and to maintain the law and order. Under such circumstances, when P.W.5 has given such a statement stating that he made the forged signature and that statement has been made before the learned Magistrate himself under Section 164 Cr.PC, he should have been made as accused, but instead, ridiculously the prosecution has made him as an witness. 30. The next question is whether he could be considered as a reliable witness arises in the mind of the Court when he gave evidence stating that he did not know the signature of Sankaranarayanan and he did not also know whether on the date of complaint Sankaranarayanan wrote the complaint in Tamil or in English. Under such circumstances, it is not known why and how P.W.5 could have been selected for the purpose of putting the signature of Sankaranarayanan. The signature of the defacto complainant in the earliest complaint (Ex.P35) is disputed by P.W.1 (Sankaranarayanan). To find out whether P.W.5 could have forged that signature, sample signatures have been obtained. 31. It is not known, if P.W.5 volunteered to admit that it is he who forged the signature, what made the Investigating Authority to take the expert opinion is not explained. To find out whether P.W.5 could have forged that signature, sample signatures have been obtained. 31. It is not known, if P.W.5 volunteered to admit that it is he who forged the signature, what made the Investigating Authority to take the expert opinion is not explained. In the letter written by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Organised Crime Unit, Crime Branch CID, Madurai City to the Inspector General of Police (South Zone), Madurai City, it is stated as follows: “Further the sample signatures of HC 681 Karuppiah were collected and sent for comparison. The document expert in D.O.C. No.338 of 2006 dated 01.08.2006 and D.O.C.No.272 of 2007 dated 28.05.2007 has opined that it is not possible to offer any reliable opinion regarding the authorship of the questioned signature. But in the course of investigation, HC 681 Karuppiah has voluntarily admitted that he affixed the signature of V.C. Sankaranarayanan, in obedience to the direction of Inspector of Police T.R. Marimuthu. Further he has deposed a statement under Section 164 Cr.PC on 09.11.2006 before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai to that effect.” 32. If really P.W.5 volunteered to give such a statement, what was the necessity of obtaining sample signature from Karuppiah and sent for handwriting expert's opinion. The probability appears to be that after the negative report of the handwriting expert's opinion, records have been created as if P.W.5 admitted that it is he who forged the signature. Under such circumstances, whether such a statement amounting to admission of guilt, alleged to have been given by Karuppiah, could have been given as stated and if so, what is the trustworthiness. 33. The judgment of the Court below relies upon the report of the hand writing expert given under Ex.P-18 pertaining to Crime No.1659 of 2005 of Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai. 34. The admitted signature and writings of Sankaranarayanan have been earmarked as S1 to S36 and S37 to S47 (Exs.P7 and P8). The questioned signature has been highlighted as 'Q'. The handwriting expert has given the opinion that signatures and writings stamped and marked as S1 to S47 were not written by the same person with the signature marked as 'Q'. Therefore, negatively it has been proved that the signature of Sankaranarayanan as found in the disputed complaint is not signed by him. 35. Then the next question is, whether the fabrication was done by the accused persons. Therefore, negatively it has been proved that the signature of Sankaranarayanan as found in the disputed complaint is not signed by him. 35. Then the next question is, whether the fabrication was done by the accused persons. With regard to the authorship of forged signature, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.5-Karuppiah. Relying upon the evidence of P.W.5, the Court came to the conclusion that the disputed complaint has been a fabricated one. 36. So far as the contents of the complaint is concerned, the phrases have been marked as 'Q1' and 'Q2' and this has been compared with sample signature of Rajasekaran (S70 to S79) and the expert has given a opinion that the person who wrote 'Q1' and 'Q2' and the person who wrote 'S70' to 'S79' is one and the same person. Therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that the contents of the disputed complaint had been written by the accused Rajasekaran. 37. The line of investigation seems to be very peculiar. It is the case of the accused Rajasekaran himself that it is only he who recorded the statement of P.W.1 Sankaranarayanan, in his own handwriting. But, the signature and contents are disputed by Sankaranarayanan. 38. One is the positive opinion stating that the contents of the disputed complaint are written by the accused Rajasekaran and the other one is the negative opinion stating that it is not the signature of Sankaranarayanan. So far as the authorship of the signature alone is concerned, the opinion of the handwriting expert is that it is not possible to say who could have forged the signature. 39. Therefore, now the question is whether the contents could have been the real one as stated by the accused persons or it is a fabricated one as contended by P.W.1 himself. 40. Whether the complaint said to have been given at the earliest point of time could have been a real one or not, is the primary issue. 40.1 It is the case of the defacto complainant that he signed the complaint in English, but the complaint produced before the Court is in Tamil and therefore, it is not a real complaint. 40.2. Whether this could be believed? He has sustained injury according to the complaint, in the right thumb finger. Therefore, it would not have been possible for him to put his signature, at that point of time. 40.3. 40.2. Whether this could be believed? He has sustained injury according to the complaint, in the right thumb finger. Therefore, it would not have been possible for him to put his signature, at that point of time. 40.3. P.W.1 claims that the complaint was attested by another Advocate. If anybody connected with non-legal field gives this sort of evidence, the Court may believe it. When P.W.1 claims that he is a Lawyer and the person who is stated to have attested the complaint is also a Lawyer, the allegation that the complaint was attested itself must be an afterthought and only to disown the original complaint. 40.4. The case of the defacto complainant is that there was intention on the part of the fourth accused to kill him and he attempted to bite the throat and while that was prevented, the fourth accused bite his right thumb. But while giving the narration of events, under Ex.P-1, which is the petition sent to the President, Bar Association, it is conspicuously missing in the first part of the complaint. In the first part of the complaint, it is simply stated that the accused therein had bitten the finger. In the later part of the complaint, there is an exaggeration stating that the accused therein attempted to bite the throat and in that attempt, he happened to bite to finger and while doing so, the accused told him that he will not leave him without killing. It is rightly said that sometimes, the silence is louder than noise. It is perfectly true in this case. Knowingly or unknowingly, consciously or unconsciously, when the initial part of the allegations did not make out any offence under Section 307 IPC and when the later part, implicating the accused, speaks about some ingredients so as to attract the offence under Section 307 IPC is introduced, then the inference is that the introduction is with an oblique motive. 40.5. Even assuming that this statement, as subsequently alleged by P.W.1, had been in the complaint, the case could not have been registered under Section 307 IPC as the mere use of words will not amount to attempt to commit murder. 40.6. This occurrence is stated to have taken place only because the fourth accused questioned the excess water being fetched by P.W.1. For this flimsy reason, nobody would have entertained an intention to kill. 40.6. This occurrence is stated to have taken place only because the fourth accused questioned the excess water being fetched by P.W.1. For this flimsy reason, nobody would have entertained an intention to kill. In other words, the motive alleged is also not so strong to the extent of the accused intending to kill the defacto complainant who is a Lawyer. 40.7. The nature of injury would also be a determining factor to find out whether the intention could have been to cause death. In the wound certificate issued by Apollo Speciality Hospital, in the column relating to date of discharge, it is mentioned as 'O.P.'. Even assuming that he was admitted for a day, the opinion is that he sustained simple injury and the only injury mentioned is the “bite injury” over the right thumb. 40.8. The evidence of P.W.5 is highly doubtful as indicated above. Any police official wanting to fabricate the document would not be inclined to take the assistance of yet another police official, except in a context where there is no other way out. If really, P.W.5 was really involved, he could have stated the same even while his sample signature was taken at the earliest point of time. After the report of the forensic expert that the sample signature and the disputed signature do not tally with each other, he might have been compelled to make such a statement. This could be the only logical conclusion. 41. The cumulative circumstances as indicated above, would go to show that the findings rendered by the Court below without considering the evidence which ought to have been considered and considering the evidence which ought not to have been considered, has made the findings perverse. Therefore, those findings are liable to be set aside. 42. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioners herein, by the Court below are set aside and the revision petitioners are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Bail bonds if any, executed by the revision petitioners/second and third accused, shall stand discharged. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.