JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Indira Shah, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 23-06-2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Addl. CBI Court-II at Chandmari, Guwahati in Special Case No.26 of 2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 420/467/468/471/201 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act,1988 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, R.I. for 6 months under Section 420 IPC, R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, R.I. for 6 months under Section 467 IPC, R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, R.I. for 6 months under Section 468 IPC, R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, R.I. for 6 months under Section 471 IPC and R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, R.I. for 2 months under Section 201 IPC, R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, R.I. for 6 months under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. All the sentences have been set to run concurrently. 2. I have heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel for CBI, Assam. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the appellant Hassan Ali was posted at Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICI) at Maligaon Branch and during November, 2004, 2 LIC Policies No. 483534143 and No. 441535489 were issued in the name of one Md. Abdul Khaleque, a non-existent person purported to be a resident of Sijubari, Guwahati. It is alleged in the FIR that the appellant-accused entered in criminal conspiracy with unknown person and in pursuance to said criminal conspiracy and by abusing his official position, 2 LIC policies were prepared based on fabricated documents. Further allegation against the accused appellant is that he fraudulently and dishonestly processed false death claim in respect of the aforesaid 2 LIC policies manufacturing false and fabricated death certificate and disbursed a total amount of Rs. 12,55,682/- towards settlement of false death claims against the said policies. It was alleged that the accused appellant with fraudulent and dishonest intention, opened a Savings Bank Account No.268984 in the name of Mrs. Rahima Khatun, known to be the wife of Md. Abdul Khaleque and nominee under the 2 policies. 12,55,682/- towards settlement of false death claims against the said policies. It was alleged that the accused appellant with fraudulent and dishonest intention, opened a Savings Bank Account No.268984 in the name of Mrs. Rahima Khatun, known to be the wife of Md. Abdul Khaleque and nominee under the 2 policies. The photographs of some other lady purported to be of Smti Rahima Khatun, the relevant Bank documents at UCO Bank at Maligaon, were affixed and the 3 claim cheques issued by the LICI, Maligaon, were encashed causing wrongful loss to the LIC of India to the extent of Rs.12,55,682/- and there by causing corresponding wrongful gain to himself and others. 4. The FIR was lodged on the basis of source information and it was registered as RC 4(A) 2006 under Sections 120B/419/420/467/471 IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. On completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/201 IPC and Section 13(2) READ WITH Section 13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act, 1988 was submitted against the accused appellant. During the trial, charge sheet under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/201 IPC and Section 13(2) READ WITH Section 13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act, 1988, were framed and the accused appellant pleaded not guilty to all the charges framed against him and claimed to be tried. 5. During the trial, all together 34 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the allegations levelled against him. He, however, did not adduce any evidence in his defense. On conclusion of trial, he was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as stated earlier. 6. Out of 34 witnesses, 6 witnesses were declared hostile. It is submitted by Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant that conviction of the accused appellant is based on the evidence of hostile witnesses of handwriting expert, as well as the evidence of PW.13. Relying on the case of Swapan Bardhan v. State of Assam, reported in 2014(6) GLR 1 and Misir Ali v. State, reported in AIR 1963 Assam 151, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that procedure for declaring a witness hostile and such portion of the statement is to be marked for identification and exhibited by the investigating officer. Relying on the case of Swapan Bardhan v. State of Assam, reported in 2014(6) GLR 1 and Misir Ali v. State, reported in AIR 1963 Assam 151, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that procedure for declaring a witness hostile and such portion of the statement is to be marked for identification and exhibited by the investigating officer. Non compliance of such procedure affects the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, though the evidences of hostile witnesses cannot be brushed aside in to but the Court must be on guard in considering such evidence of hostile witnesses as such witnesses used to have no regard for the truth and the court should be slow to act upon the evidence of such witnesses. 7. In the cited case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani and Another, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 291 , it was observed in para 10, as under:- "The fact that the witness was declared hostile by the Court at the request of the prosecuting counsel and he was allowed to cross-examine the witness, no doubt furnishes no justification for rejecting en bloc the evidence of the witness. But the court has at least to be aware that prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times has no regard for truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to the same. The court should look for corroboration to his evidence. The High Court has accepted the testimony of the hostile witnesses as gospel truth for throwing overboard the prosecution case which had been fully established by the testimony of several eyewitnesses, which was of unimpeachable character. The approach of the High Court in dealing with the case, to say the least, is wholly fallacious." 8. In the case of Alok Deb Roy and Others v. State of Assam, reported in 2003 (3) GLT 468, the Division Bench of this High Court has observed in para 45, as under:- "The decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Rabin Kr. In the case of Alok Deb Roy and Others v. State of Assam, reported in 2003 (3) GLT 468, the Division Bench of this High Court has observed in para 45, as under:- "The decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Rabin Kr. Dey v. State of Orissa (supra), Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Haryana (supra), Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (supra), Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (supra), State of UP v. Ramesh Prasad Misra and another (supra), Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Jagir Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration) (supra) are on the point of the status and admissibility of the evidence of a hostile witness. In Jagir Singh, the Apex Court entertained the view that when a witness called by the prosecution, is permitted to be cross examined on behalf of the prosecution, the result of that course being adopted is to discredit that witness all together. This view changed and in Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (supra) it was held that a court may grant permission to a party to cross examine its witnesses if from the demeanour, temper, attitude, bearing, or the tenor and tendency of his answers, or from a perusal of his previous inconsistent statement, or otherwise it thinks that the grant of such permission is expedient to extract the truth and to do justice. But the grant of such permission does not amount to an adjudication by the court as to the veracity of the witness. It was laid down that thereby neither the party calling the witness nor the adverse party is precluded from relying on any part of the statement of such witness. In other words, in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party calling him his evidence cannot be treated as washed off the record altogether and it is for the court to consider whether as a result of such cross examination and contradictions, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can be believed in regard to any part of his testimony. If in the process, the credit of the witness is not completely shaken, the court may after assessing and considering his evidence with due caution and care accept, in the light of the other evidence on record, that part of his testimony which is found credit worthy and act upon it. If, however, the witness stands discredited his evidence has to be discarded. The same view was echoed in the later decisions. The evidence of a hostile witness spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused has to be subjected to close scrutiny and if found consistent with the case of the prosecution or the defence may be accepted, was ruled by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra and another. The Apex Court laying the emphasis on the requirement of cautious and circumspect approach in acting on the testimony of hostile witness in Balu Sonba Shinde (supra) observed that declaration of a witness to be hostile does not ipso facto efface his evidence and the portion of the evidence which advantageous to the parties may be taken advantage of. The necessary pre-condition, however, for allowing a party to cross examination its own witnesses by declaring him hostile is the satisfaction of the court that statements of the witness exhibit an element of hostility or hat he has resiled from earlier statements made before some authority or when the court is satisfied that the witness is not speaking the truth and that it would be necessary to cross examine him to elicit the truth. This satisfaction, to start with would have some bearing on the acceptability of the evidence of that witness and it is only after assessing the intrinsic worth of his testimony with utmost care and caution that either the prosecution or the defence may rely on any part thereof which is consistent with its case. The probative value of the evidence of a hostile witness therefore would depend on its quality and the confidence it generates in the mind of the court after being subject to a close scrutiny. If the testimony of such a witness placed in juxtaposition to the other evidence on record does not appear to be consistent and acceptable the same cannot be relied upon. If the testimony of such a witness placed in juxtaposition to the other evidence on record does not appear to be consistent and acceptable the same cannot be relied upon. In the case in hand, as discussed above, the evidence of PW-6 by applying the aforementioned tests cannot be accepted in support of the defence version, while we respectfully subscribe to the legal principle laid down in the above decisions, we are unable to hold that those further the case of the defence in the present facts and circumstances." 9. The conviction of the accused appellant also based on the evidence of PW.32 i.e. handwriting expert. PW.32 did not receive the admitted writing/signature of the accused appellant for comparison and he submitted his reason for opinion (Ext. 74) on the previous day of tendering his evidence. This High Court, in the case of Krishna Kanta Das v. State of Assam, (2005) 1 GLR 64, held that an expert's opinion is valueless unless the opinion is supported by reasons and data. An expert's opinion is not binding on Courts; it is only relevant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. For such opinion to be accepted by the court, the expert must assign reasons, for, it is the reason given by the expert, which is important and not his mere opinion. 10. It is further submitted that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a chain of circumstances unbreakable, which leads to only conclusion that the accused and none else was the author of crime in question. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Shyamal Saha and Another v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 321 , wherein, in para 28, it was held as under:- "What is also important in this case is that it is one of circumstantial evidence. Following the principles laid down in several decisions of this Court beginning with Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, it is clear that the chain of events must be so complete as to leave no room for any other hypothesis except that the accused were responsible for the death of the victim. This principle has been followed and reiterated in a large number of decisions over the last 30 years and one of the more recent decisions in this regard is Majenderan Langeswaran v. State (NCT of Delhi). This principle has been followed and reiterated in a large number of decisions over the last 30 years and one of the more recent decisions in this regard is Majenderan Langeswaran v. State (NCT of Delhi). The High Court did not take this into consideration and merely proceeded on the basis of the last seen theory." 11. Similarly in the cited case of Sangili Alias Sanganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police, (2014) 10 SCC 264 , it was held that suspicion however strong cannot be a substitute for proof. 12. From the evidence of PW.2, Sri Joy Gopal Banik, Manager and Personal Industrial Relation, LICI, it appears that the accused Hassan Ali was promoted to the rank of Branch Manger and posted at Bokakhat Brnach. He took over the charge of Branch Manager at Bokakhat Branch on 06-07-1998. He was transferred to Maligaon Branch office at Guwahati from Bokakhat and took over the charge on 25-05-2002. PW.2 exhibited (Ext.9), the staff record sheet in respect of the accused appellant, Hassan Ali, which contains the detailed of appointment, name of nominee, date of birth, date of admission, permanent address. The accused appellant, Hassan Ali, nominated his wife Smti Rahima Khatun to receive Provident Fund, Gratuity, Addl. Gratuity, and Group Terms Insurance. 13. During investigation by the CBI, the original payment voucher in respect of policy No. 48355143 for Rs. 7,55,982/-, original payment voucher in respect of policy No. 483534143 for Rs. 2,50,000/-, original payment voucher in respect of policy No. 441535489 for Rs. 1,39,700/-, original payment voucher in respect of policy No. 441535489 for Rs. 1,10,000/- and 20 number of policy opening blank forms and one letter addressed to ASM Tahar regarding missing of documents, one copy of status report of policy No. 441535489 in the name of Abdul Khaleque were seized. Ext.21 is the letter addressed to the Inspector of Police, ASM Tahar, CBI Guwahati by which, PW.2 intimated that the original paid docket under policy No.483534143 and 441535489 in the name of Abdul Khaleque was in force and was maintained at Maligaon Branch of LICI office. The said policy commenced on 28-06-2004. The name of the nominee as per the said policy was Smti. Rahima Khatun and the address of Rahima Khatun was shown as wife of late Abdul Khaleque, Sijubari, PS-Hatigaon, Guwahati. The said policy commenced on 28-06-2004. The name of the nominee as per the said policy was Smti. Rahima Khatun and the address of Rahima Khatun was shown as wife of late Abdul Khaleque, Sijubari, PS-Hatigaon, Guwahati. The payment was made vide cheque dated 25-11-2004 and the net payment was Rs.7,55,982/-. Similarly, in respect of policy No.441535489, in the name of Abdul Khaleque, Rahima Khatun was the nominee and an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- vide cheque dated 25-11-2004 was paid to Rahima Khatun. 14. In respect of policy No.441535489, the issuing Branch was Bokakhat Branch and the date of commence was 28-03-2001. It appears from the evidence of PW.7, Reba Biswas, Asstt, LICI, Maligaon Branch that 2 policies were commenced at Bokakhat Brnach and subsequently transferred to Maligaon Branch. PW.6, Sh. Kaushik Ranjan Brahmachari, Retd. Divisional Manager (Claims), has exhibited Ext.35, the note sheet in respect of death claim of the deceased's life assured Abdul Khaleque. The note sheet was prepared in respect of 2 policies and it was prepared by Ramani Mohan Baruah, Administrative Officer (PW.8). It also appears from the evidence of PW.6 and PW.8 that policy No. 483534143 for sum assured Rs.2,50,000/- was an early death claim of duration 3 months 11 days whereas death claim in respect of Policy No. 441535489 for sum assured Rs.1,10,000/- was a non-early death claim of duration 3 years 6 months 11 days. The nominee in respect of both the claims was Rahima Khatun, wife of late Abdul Khaleque. 15. The early death claim being beyond the financial power of PW.6 and it was forwarded to the Senior Divisional Manager. PW.6 stated that the death claims in respect of both the policies were forwarded by Maligaon Branch of LICI. In case of early claim, investigation report is mandatory and the investigation has to be conducted by the Branch Manage or the Assistant Branch Manager. The accused appellant Hassan Ali, then the Branch Manager of LICI, Maliga and on Branch, submitted the investigation report and on the basis of his investigation report, the death claim was recommended for payment. PW.6 has stated that so far as the genuineness of the investigation report is concerned, it is seen the person, who is forwarding is same and if it is from the level of Branch Manager, no further verification is made. PW.6 has stated that so far as the genuineness of the investigation report is concerned, it is seen the person, who is forwarding is same and if it is from the level of Branch Manager, no further verification is made. The identity of the deceased was established from the death certificate submitted along with death claim document. PW.6 admitted the non-early death claim on the basis of the report receipt from the LICI, Maligaon Branch. However, in cross-examination, he stated that in case of one early and one non-early case on the same life assured, both policies are sent to Divisional Office for settlement of claims. As such, both the aforesaid policies of life assured of Abdul Khaleque were sent to Divisional Office for settlement. In both the cases everything was found in order. 16. PW.7, Reba Biswas, in cross-examination, stated that we processed and settled the claims of both the policies following official process while processing everything was found correct and in order. 17. PW.4, Sri Satya Nath Sarma was posted at Assam Sachibalaya, MDG post office as sub-Post mater. On being asked by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Guwahati, he, through his letter, exhibit- 37, informed that there is no such person name of Md. Abdul Khalek, C/o Md. Hussain Ali, Sizubari, PO-Hatigaon, Guwahati and there is no such woman named Mrs. Rahima Khatun, C/o Md. Hussain Ali, Sizubari, PO-Hatigaon, Guwahati. He also stated that the delivery jurisdiction of Hatigaon post office is under the jurisdiction of Assam Sachibalaya post office. In cross-examination, he, however, admitted that he cannot say if any person by name Abdul Khalek and Mrs. Rahima Khatun resided in any part of Sizubari at Guwahati. 18. PW.4, Sri Kamala Choudhury was a Grade-IV employee of LICI, Maligaon Branch. He exhibited the cheque issued in the name of Rahima Khatun and drawn the money from the UCO Bank. He testified his signature on the reverse side of the cheque. He could not remember the lady Rahima Khatun. He stated that he handed over the cheque as well as the encashment amount to Mrs. Rahima Khatun. He was declared hostile in the prosecution. 19. PW.5, Sri Dhrubananda Das, Regional Manageer (Estate), LICI, Eastern Zonal Office, Kolkata, deposed about the procedure of early death claim and non-early death claim and the similar line as deposed by PW.2 and PW.6. 20. Rahima Khatun. He was declared hostile in the prosecution. 19. PW.5, Sri Dhrubananda Das, Regional Manageer (Estate), LICI, Eastern Zonal Office, Kolkata, deposed about the procedure of early death claim and non-early death claim and the similar line as deposed by PW.2 and PW.6. 20. PW.8, Sri Ramani Mohan Barua, was Administrative Officer (Claims) in the Division Office of LICI of Guwahati Division. His duty was to process the death claim forwarded by the different Branch under Guwahati Division and to prepared a note in respect of the same and placing it before the Senior Officer. Accordingly, he prepared the death claims pertaining to 2 policies in the name of Abdul Khaleque under Maligaon Branch. He put up both the claims with the note prepared by him stating that claims may be admitted if both the claims before his senior authority with his note that the claims may be admitted. 21. PW.9, Sri Monoranjan Seal, was higher grade Assistant in LICI of Maligaon Branch. He forwarded the post-mortem report and policy report in respect of Policy holder Abdul Khaleque. 22. PW.26, Sh. Sevak Kumar Dey, Retd. ADM, LICI, Bongaigaon Divisional Office was the Administrative Office, LICI Divisional Office, Guwahati at the relevant time. He has vividly described the procedure in respect of death claim of the policy holder and deposed that the requirement for settling early death claims are, (1) Death Certificate, (2) Post-mortem report if death is accidental, (3) Final Policy report if death is accidental, (4) Claim Form-A i.e., claimant's statement, (5) Claim Form-B, i.e., statement of the last attended doctor, (6) Claim Form-B-1 i.e., hospital treatment report if the policy holder was hospitalized during last illness, (7) Claim Form-E, Employer's record to verify the leave availed by the policy holder during the last 3 years from the date of proposal or date or revival, (8) Claim Form-C i.e. Certificate of cremation from a person who is not related to the policy holder and was present at the time of cremation, (9) Finally, the Investigation Report to prove the death and identity of the deceased by the Investigator, i.e. B.M., if the risk is below 3 lakhs or by Asstt. B.M. if the risk is below 1 lakh. If the risk is Rs. 3 lakhs or more than Rs. B.M. if the risk is below 1 lakh. If the risk is Rs. 3 lakhs or more than Rs. 3 lakhs in addition to the investigation conducted by B.M/A.B.M of the Branch a further investigation by an official of Divisional Office, not below the rank of A.D.M. is necessary. 23. PW.28, Md. Hassan Ali was the President of Ward Congress Committee of Ward No.60 for 25 years. He stated that being in politics and social service, he had visited all the residences of his ward in Sijubari area. There were no such person named Abduk Khaleque and Rahima Khatun, W/o Abdul Khaleque during the year 2001-04. Accordingly, he issued a certificate about the non-existence of Abdul Khaleque and Rahima Khatun, W/o Abdul Khaleque in Ward No.60, Sijubari area under Guwahati Municipal Corporation. In cross-examination, he stated that there are several tenants residing in Sijubari area. He could not say if any person by name Abdul Khaleque and Rahima Khatun residing in Sijubari area as tenant. 24. PW.29, Sri Dhaneswar Sarma, Sr. Manager, UCO Bank, Fency Bazaar Branch, Guwahati, was posted as Manager (cash) at Maligaon Branch. He stated that the application form and the photo on the application form was duly attested by the then Senior Manager, Maligaon Branch of the UCO Bank. According to him, the account in the name of Rahima Khatun W/o Hussain Ali was prepared for opening the account after following all official formalities. 25. PW.15, Najleen Ara Begum, was a lady Assistant in the Police Department. The photograph affixed in the Savings Bank Account of the UCO Bank at Maligaon Branch was shown to her and she denied that it was her photograph. 26. PW.17, Jitu Kumar Dauka, LICI Agent, under LICI Maligaon Branch, who, in the account opening form, introduced Rahima Khatun. He deposed that he introduced her at her request. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. In cross-examination by the defence, he stated that he verified the I.D. proof of Mrs. Rahima Khatun and moreover, she was personally known to him. Rahima Khatun put her signature in his presence. 27. PW.20, Sh. Sushanta Dhar, was working as HGA, LICI, Maligaon Brnach at the relevant time. He stated that the cheques in respect of death claim of Abdul Khaleque were issued in favour of Rahima Khatun. Rahima Khatun and moreover, she was personally known to him. Rahima Khatun put her signature in his presence. 27. PW.20, Sh. Sushanta Dhar, was working as HGA, LICI, Maligaon Brnach at the relevant time. He stated that the cheques in respect of death claim of Abdul Khaleque were issued in favour of Rahima Khatun. All the cheques were created into on the Bank Account No. 268984 of Rahima Khatun in UCO Bank at Maligaon Branch. 28. PW.24, Sh. Debasish Choudhury, was working as Administrative Officer at LICI Maligaon Branch during the period June, 2003 to May, 2005. He stated that Account No. 268984 of UCO Bank at Maligaon Branch was in the name of Rahima Khatun and her husband's name is given as Hussain Ali, but as per the name in the LICI policy status her husband's name is Abdul Khaleque. Similarly, PW.25, Sh. Babul Biswas, AAO, LICI, Maligaon Branch, deposed that as per Exhibit-50, Account Opening Form of Account No.268984 of UCO Bank, Maligaon Brnach was in the name of Rahima Khatun and her husband's name is given as Hussain Ali but as per the name in the LICI policy status, her husband's name is Abdul Khaleque. 29. PW.10, Sh. Tilak Chandra Sarma, was then Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch. He exhibited Ext. 49, Specimen signature card of SB A/C No. 268984 of UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch in the name of Mrs. Rahima Khatun with photograph of Mrs. Rahima Khatun affixed thereon. He also exhibited Ext. 50, the account opening form of the said account as well as Ext. 52, a copy of LICI Policy certificate of Rahima Khatun submitted along with the account opening form. He deposed that on the day at about 11.30 a.m. when he come out from his chamber, incidentally he found that the then Branch Manager of LICI Maligaon Branch H. Ali was sitting along with a lady in front of the then Manager, UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch. He further deposed that as Mr. Ali was then Manager of LICI of Maligaon Branch and one of valued customer of the Bank. When went to him to give a courtesy call, he (H. Ali) told him that he come there with the lady for opening an account, which will be in the name of his wife and introduced the lady as his wife Rahima Khatun. Ali was then Manager of LICI of Maligaon Branch and one of valued customer of the Bank. When went to him to give a courtesy call, he (H. Ali) told him that he come there with the lady for opening an account, which will be in the name of his wife and introduced the lady as his wife Rahima Khatun. The account opening form and LICI policy with its copy were ready with him. He further deposed that LICI being was valued customer and he (H. Ali) being a Manager of LICI, Maligaon Branch to show a good gesture, he believed his statement and attested the photograph of the lady attached in the account opening form and also verified the copy of the LICI policy. He stated that initially he knew the then Branch Manager of LICI, Maligaon Branch as H. Ali but whenever he come with cheques drawan in this account, he come as Hussain Ali. When the fraudulent activities in the account come to light then only it was confirmed that he was Hassan Ali. He exhibited, Ext. 53, SB Account pay-in-slip dated 26-11-2004 through which cheque No. 319943 for Rs. 2,50,000/- was deposited in the Savings A/C No. 268984 of Rahima Khatun lying with UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch. He also exhibited Ext. 54, the Savings A/C Pay-in-Slip dated 26-11-2004, through which cheque No. 319938 for Rs. 1,39,700/- was deposited in the SB A/c No. 268984 of Rahima Khatun lying with UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch. He further exhibited Ext.55, the Savings A/c pay-in-slip dated 26-11-2004 through which cheque No. 319939 for Rs. 7,55,982 was deposited in the savings A/C No. 268984 of Rahima Khatun lying with UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch. He exhibited Ext.53, Ext.54, Ext.55, pay-in-slips, Ext.30, Ext.31 and Ext.29, cheques respectively. Ext. 32, the cheque No. 319944 dated 25-11-2004 drawn on UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch in favour of A/C No. 268984 of Rahima Khatun, issued by the LICI, Maligaon Branch. According to him the A/C No. 268984 of Rahima Khatun was introduced by Shri Jitu Kumar Dauka (PW-17), LICI Agent, Maligaon Branch, the holder of A/C No. 257729 of UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch. He exhibited Ext.56, Ext.57, Ext.58, Ext.59, Ext.60, Ext.61 and Ext.62, the cheques drawn on UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch against the A/c No. 268984 of Rahima Khatun for Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. He exhibited Ext.56, Ext.57, Ext.58, Ext.59, Ext.60, Ext.61 and Ext.62, the cheques drawn on UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch against the A/c No. 268984 of Rahima Khatun for Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,10,000/- respectively drawn from the Savings A/C No. 268984 of Rahima Khatun. He also exhibited Ext.63, the certificate copy of statement of account No. 268984 of Rahima Khatun from the period 11-10-2004 to 15-01-2006. He further stated that during 11-10-2004 to 30-03-2005, the transaction in the said account was continuing and most of the transactions were cash withdrawal. There were only six number of deposits, out of which, four deposits were through cheques issued by the LICI, Maligaon Branch. In cross-examination, he admitted that the account holder of A/C No.268984 Smt. Rahima Khatun availed a loan from the Bank against the policy No. 483217106 and submitted the original policy document to the Bank. 30. PW.13, Sh. Paresh Sarma, Grade-IV employee of LICI, Maligaon Branch. He exhibited Ext.53 and Ext.54, the Savings A/c pay-in-slips, whereby amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 1,39,700/- were deposited in the A/C No. 268984 in the name of Rahima Khatun in UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch. Similarly, vide Ext. 55, SB pay-in-slip for Rs. 7,55,982/- was deposited in the same account. He testified his signature as depositor. He also exhibited the corresponding cheques i.e. Ext.30, Ext.31 and Ext.29. He stated that Hassan Ali, the then Branch Manager of LICI, Maligaon Branch asked him to deposit those cheques in the Bank. He also told him that all information regarding account number, name etc. is mentioned in the cheques, so, pay-in-slips may be filled up. According to the direction of Hassan Ali, Branch Manager, LICI, he (PW-13) filled up the Ext.54 and Ext.55, pay-in-slips and deposited Ext.30, Ext.31 and Ext.29 cheques in the UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch against the A/c No. 268984 of Rahima Khatun. 31. PW.19, Sh. Nani Gopal Paul, was instructed by the Sr. Divisional Manager, LICI, Divisional Office Guwahati to investigate some death claim cases of LICI Maligaon Branch. During inquiry, he found that some death claims on some policies were very much doubtful and dubious in character. He also found the identities of the nominees doubtful. Therefore, he though further investigation should be done by an outside agency. Accordingly, he recommended the same in his report. During inquiry, he found that some death claims on some policies were very much doubtful and dubious in character. He also found the identities of the nominees doubtful. Therefore, he though further investigation should be done by an outside agency. Accordingly, he recommended the same in his report. He stated that during inquiry, he inquired about the death claims in respect of 2 policies, Policy No. 483543143 and 441535489. In both the policies, nominee's named as Rahima Khatun and the life assured was Abdul Khaleque. 32. PW.21, Sh. Goranga Nath, was working as sub-staff, Maligaon Branch during the relevant period. He exhibited Ext.60 cheque No. 490183 dated 18-10-2004 for Rs. 20,000/-, Ext.61 cheque No. 490181 dated 14-10-2004 for Rs. 50,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch issued in the name of Rahima Khatun against the SB A/c No. 268984. According to him, the account number of the nominee of the claimant in whose favour the cheques were issued is furnished by the claimant and nominee. In respect of 2 policies, the account number of nominee as furnished is A/c No. 268984 of UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch. As per Ext.50, the account opening form, the A/C No. 268984 was in the name of Rahima Khatun and her husband's name is given as Hussain Ali but as per nominee in the LICI policies, status of her husband's name is Abdul Khaleque. 33. PW.16, Sh. Sobhan Kumar Choudhury, was posted in the claims branch of LICI, Guwahati Divisional Office as Administrative Officer. On being directed by the Manager (PNIR) to attend CBI Office, he went there and he found that the accused Hassan Ali and Najleen Ara Begum who put their specimen handwriting and signatures in various sheets in his presence. PW-16 also put his signature as witness to the specimen handwriting of the accused Hassan Ali and Najleen Ara Begum. He also identified the accused Hassan Ali and Najleen Ara Begum were present in the court. He exhibited the handwriting and specimen signatures of Najleen Ara Bengum in Ext. 65, Ext. 65(1) to Ext. 65(12). Ext. 66(1) to Ext.66 (27) are the specimen signatures and handwriting of Hassan Ali. 34. PW.32, Sri Narendra Kumar, Dy. GEQD, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla was then posted in the office of GEQD, Kolkata as AGEQD. The documents to be examined were forwarded by the Superintendent of Police (CBI) vide letter dated 28-05-2007. 65, Ext. 65(1) to Ext. 65(12). Ext. 66(1) to Ext.66 (27) are the specimen signatures and handwriting of Hassan Ali. 34. PW.32, Sri Narendra Kumar, Dy. GEQD, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla was then posted in the office of GEQD, Kolkata as AGEQD. The documents to be examined were forwarded by the Superintendent of Police (CBI) vide letter dated 28-05-2007. The documents received for examination were marked under Q-series for questioned documents as Q-1 to Q-30 and Q-1A to Q-30A and S-series for specimen signatures and handwriting as S-1 to S-41. He stated that the questioned documents were carefully and thoroughly examined and compared with the standard documents by him and Shri A.K. Singh, AGEQD independently at the office of GEQD Kolkata with the help of scientific instruments available at the office and both PW-32 and the said A.K. Singh, come to same conclusion which was reduced in the form of opinion dated 16-08-2007. Both signed the same opinion. He exhibited Ext.72 the said opinion and PW-32 testified his signature and the signature of Shri A.K. Singh in Ext.72. He also exhibited the forwarding letter by which the opinion was forwarded to the SP(CBI), ACB, Guwahati. He gave the following opinion as follows:- "the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked as S-14 to S-41 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped as marked as Q-1, Q-1A to Q-1C, Q-2, Q-2A, Q-2C to Q-2E, Q-3, Q-4,Q-7, Q-7A, Q-7B, Q-8 to Q-30 and Q-8A to Q-30A. This opinion is in respect to Sri Hassan Ali. S-14 to S-41 referred in my opinion are in Ext.66, Ext.66/1 to Ext.66/27 (28 sheets). Q-1, Q-IA to Q-1C are in Ext. 49. Q-2, Q-2A and Q-2C are in Ext.50. Q-2D and Q-2 E are in page-1 of Ext.50. Q-3 is in the reverse side of Ext.32. Q-4 is in the reverse side of Ext.31. Q-7 is in Ext.62 and Q-7A and Q-7B are in the reverse side of Ext.62. Q-8 is in Ext.61 and Q-8A is in the reverse side of Ext.61. Q-9 is in Ext.1 and Q-9A is in the reverse side of Ext.1. Q-10 is in Ext.60 and Q-10A is in the reverse side of Ext.60. Q-11 is in Ext.2 and Q-11A is in the reverse side of Ext.1. Q-12 is in Ext.3 and Q-12A is in the reverse side of Ext.3. Q-9 is in Ext.1 and Q-9A is in the reverse side of Ext.1. Q-10 is in Ext.60 and Q-10A is in the reverse side of Ext.60. Q-11 is in Ext.2 and Q-11A is in the reverse side of Ext.1. Q-12 is in Ext.3 and Q-12A is in the reverse side of Ext.3. Q-13 is in Ext.4 and Q-13A is in the reverse side of Ext.4. Q-14 is in Ext.5 and Q-14A is in the reverse side of Ext.5. Q-15 is in Ext.59 and Q-15A is in the reverse side of Ext.59. Q-16 is in Ext.47 and Q-16A is in the reverse side of Ext.47. Q-17 is in Ext.56 and Q-17A is in the reverse side of Ext.56. Q-18 is in Ext.6 and Q-18A is in the reverse side of Ext.6. Q-19 is in Ext.46 and Q-19A is in the reverse side of Ext.45. Q-20 is in Ext.45 and Q-20A is in the reverse side of Ext.45. Q-21 is in Ext.7 and Q-21A is in the reverse side of Ext.7. Q-22 is in Ext.8 and Q-22 is in the reverse side of Ext.8. Q-23 is in Ext.44 and Q-23A is in the reverse side of Ext.44. Q-24 is in Ext.58 and Q-24A is in the reverse side of Ext.58. Q-25 is in Ext.57 and Q-25A is in the reverse side of Ext.57. Q-26 is in Ext.43 and Q-26A is in the reverse side of Ext.43. Q-27 is in Ext.42 and Q-27A is in the reverse side of Ext.42. Q-28 is in Ext.41 and Q-28A is in the reverse side of Ext.41. Q-29 is in Ext.40 and Q-29A is in the reverse side of Ext.40. Q-30 is in Ext.39 and Q-30A is in the reverse side of Ext.39." 35. In cross-examination, he stated that admitted writings/signatures were not sent for comparison. He compared the questioned writings and signatures which specimen writings and gave his opinion. He, however, denied that at there were no admitted writings and his findings are not correct. He also admitted that he did not submit the reasons for opinion i.e. Ext.74 along with the opinion Ext.72 and only a day before his deposition in the court, he submitted the reasons for opinion i.e. Ext.74. 36. PW-33, Sri Prakash Thapa, one of the Investigating Officers, stated that he obtained specimen signatures/handwritings of the accused Hassan Ali and other suspected persons and sent the same for GEQD's opinion. 36. PW-33, Sri Prakash Thapa, one of the Investigating Officers, stated that he obtained specimen signatures/handwritings of the accused Hassan Ali and other suspected persons and sent the same for GEQD's opinion. He exhibited Ext.66, Ext.66(1) to Ext.66(27), the specimen handwritings and signatures of Hassan Ali, which were collected in presence of PW.16, Sobhan Kr. Choudhury. He also stated that during investigation, the specimen handwritings of Smti Najleen Ara Begum was also obtained in presence of independent witness Shri Sobhan Kr. Choudhury (PW-16). Ext. 65(1) to Ext.65(12) are the specimen handwritings of Najleen Ara Begum. Ext. 65(13) to 65(25) are her signatures. The specimen signatures and questioned documents were forwarded by the then SP(CBI), ACB, Guwahati. 37. PW-33 and PW-31 are the Investigating Officers. PW-33 filed the charge sheet against the accused Hassan Ali after obtaining sanction for prosecution. PW-23, Abdul Mazid and PW-28, Md. Hassan Ali, both resident of Sijubari, Hatigaon, Guwahati, stated that there was no person named Abdul Khaleque and Rahima Khatun, W/o of Abdul Khaleque residing at Sijubari area. PW-23 stated that he has been residing at Sijubari area since 1984 and he was Councilor of Ward No.60 under the GMC during the period 2004 to 2006, therefore most of the inhabitants of Sijubari area are known to him. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that it is not possible to know all the persons by name residing at Sijubari-Hatigaon area. Similarly, PW-28 was the President of Ward Congress Committee of Ward No.60 for 25 years. He stated that in Sijubari area there was no person named Abdul Khaleque and Rahima Khatun, W/o Abdul Khaleque during the year 2001-2004. Accordingly, he issued Ext.68, the certificate in respect of non-existence of Abdul Khaleque and Rahima Khatun, W/o Abdul Khaleque. HH 38. By adducing the evidence of PW-2, the prosecution has established that the accused Hassan Ali was the Branch Manager of LICI Bokakhat Branch. The name of his wife is Smti. Rahima Khatun. While he was at Bokakhat LICI Branch, 2 policies in the name of Abdul Khaleque commenced at Bokakhat Brnach. The accused Hassan Ali subsequently transferred to Maligaon Branch of LICI and the policies in the name of Abdul Khaleque were also transferred to Maligaon Branch of the LICI (PW-7). In both the policies, Rahima Khatun, W/o Abdul Khaleque was mentioned as nominee. The accused Hassan Ali subsequently transferred to Maligaon Branch of LICI and the policies in the name of Abdul Khaleque were also transferred to Maligaon Branch of the LICI (PW-7). In both the policies, Rahima Khatun, W/o Abdul Khaleque was mentioned as nominee. The Bank Account being A/c No. 268984 in the name of Rahima Khatun was opened at UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch. At the time of opening of the Bank account, the name of the husband of Rahima Khatun was mentioned as Hussain Ali (PW-24). At the time of opening of the bank account of Rahima Khatun at UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch, the accused Hassan Ali was accompanied by a lady and introduced her as Rahima Khatun is his wife (PW-10). PW-17, Jitu Kumar Dauka, was LICI Agent working under the accused Hassan Ali, introduced Rahima Khatun in the SB bank account opening form. All cheques in respect of death claims of Abdul Khaleque were issued in favour of Rahima Khatun by the accused and credited into the bank account No.268984 of Rahima Khatun, W/o Hussain Ali. PW-10 stated that although the accused was known to him as H. Ali but whenever cheques drawn in the account maintained in the name of Rahima Khatun, he come as Hussain Ali. PW-13, Paresh Sarma, and PW-4, Kamala Choudhury, Grade-IV employee of LICI, Maligaon Branch were directed by the accused to deposit the cheques issued in favour of Rahima Khatun by LICI in the UCO Bank. They were also directed to encash some of the cheques from the account of Rahima Khatun. The cheques were never handed over to Rahima Khatun although PW-4, stated that he encashed the cheques and handed over the cash amount to Rahima Khatun. 39. It is apparent from the evidence of PW-13 that the accused asked him to deposit the cheques in the Bank. The accused Hassan Ali also told him that all information regarding account number, name etc. are mentioned in the cheques, so, the pay-in-slips, may be filled up. According to direction of Hassan Ali (accused), PW-13, filled up the pay-in-slips and deposit the cheques in the UCO Bank of Maligaon Branch against the A/c No. 268984 of Rahima Khatun. The accused Hassan Ali also told him that all information regarding account number, name etc. are mentioned in the cheques, so, the pay-in-slips, may be filled up. According to direction of Hassan Ali (accused), PW-13, filled up the pay-in-slips and deposit the cheques in the UCO Bank of Maligaon Branch against the A/c No. 268984 of Rahima Khatun. By way of cross-examination of PW-23 and PW-28, an attempt to create doubt was made by the defence by asking the said witnesses that there may be persons named Abdul Khaleque and Rahima Khatun residing at the given address. However, the facts remain that the Bank Account was opened in the name of Rahima Khatun, W/o Hussain Ali but not the wife of Abdul Khaleque, the original policy holder. At the time of opening of the account in the name of Rohima Khatoon, the accused introduced the lady as his wife and in the a/c account form Rahima Khatoon is shown as wife of Hussain Ali. 40. From the documents exhibited it appears that Ex.49 is the specimen Card of A/C No. 268984, of UCO Bank and Ex.50 is the account opening form. Ex-31 and 32 are the cheques issued by LICI through which death claim in respect of the policy NO. 441535489 was released. Ex-61, Ext-62, Ext-60, Ext-2, Ext-3, Ext-4, Ext-5, Ext-59, Ext-47, Ext-56, Ext-6, Ext-46, Ext-45, Ext-7, Ext-8, Ext-44, Ext-58, Ext-43, Ext-42, Ext-41, Ext-40 and Ext-39 are the cheques issued against A/C No. 268984, standing in the name of Rahima Khatun W/O-Hussain Ali. 41. From the evidence of handwriting expert, it appears that Ext-31, Ext-1 to Ext-8, Ext-39 to Ext-47 and Ext-60 and Ext-61 cheques were signed by the accused Hussain Ali as Rahima Khatoon. PW-21 stated that the accused Hussain Ali gave him Ext-60 and Ext-61, the two cheques for encashment. Accordingly he enchased the cheques collected the money and handed over the same to accused Md. Hasan Ali. 42. Thus, the upshot of aforesaid discussions is that the accused by making a false presentation, opened the basic account in the name of Rahima Khatoon was shown as nominee in respect of policy holder namely Abdul Khaleque. Rahima Khatoon was introduced as wife of the accused at the time of opening of basic account. In the bank account of Rahima Khatoon, she is shown as wife of Hussain Ali. Rahima Khatoon was introduced as wife of the accused at the time of opening of basic account. In the bank account of Rahima Khatoon, she is shown as wife of Hussain Ali. The cheques were deposited to and enchased from the UCO Bank account of Rahima Khatoon at the direction of the accused. Whereabouts of Rahima Khatoon or Abdul Khaleque could not be traced out at the given address. The specimen handwriting and signatures in the cheques were in the opinion that the handwriting expert was of accused. 43. For the aforesaid discussion, this cannot is of considered opinion that the judgment passed by the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed. The appellant shall serve the remainder of the sentence, if any.