ORDER  : S. RACHAIAH, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 28.02.2012 and 14.03.2012 in C.C No.5277/1999 and C.C.No.3658/2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, and its confirmation judgment and order dated 16.09.2017 in Crl.A.Nos.26, 27 and 34 of 2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi District, Udupi, wherein the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioners are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 467, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). As against the inadequacy of the sentence passed by the Trial Court, the complainant had preferred two appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos.38 and 39 of 2012 to enhance the sentence and the same was also dismissed by the Appellate Court. 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Nos.1 to 4 with a dishonest common intention to grab the property belonging to Francis Cutino bearing Sy.No.101/5 measuring 1 acre 59 cents, situated at Pilaru village, Udupi Taluk, all the accused persons entered into a conspiracy on 17.09.1998, at about 3.40 p.m., in such a way that accused No.2 – Ronald Gomes, at the instance of accused No.1, by misrepresenting and forged the signatures and thumb impression of Francis Cutino by impersonation and got the registered sale deed in favour of accused No.1. The accused Nos.3 and 4 have signed the sale deed as witnesses. 4. Based on the forged sale deed, the accused No.1 got mutated the property in his name and committed criminal trespass. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation. The respondent - Police after registering the case, conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined, in all, 20 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 20 and got marked 79 documents as per Exhibits P1 to P79. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty of the offences stated supra. 6. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined, in all, 20 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 20 and got marked 79 documents as per Exhibits P1 to P79. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty of the offences stated supra. 6. Heard Sri S Mahesh for Sri Dinesh Kumar Rao , learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court are contrary to the law and probabilities of the case. 8. It is further submitted that the Courts below have committed serious errors in relying on the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 7, 16 and 17 who are the interested witnesses and their testimonies are not consistent and cogent. In fact, their evidence is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. 9. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 clearly reveal that Francis Cutino was not available to prove his alleged signature found on Ex.P5. Further, the persons who were acquainted with the said signatures were also not examined. The Investigating Officer has not conducted a proper investigation in respect of Ex.P5. The execution of the old sale deed, to prove that it is genuine and original, the said document was not traced and marked. 10. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine the attesting witnesses of Ex.P5. When the evidence of the material witnesses have not been properly examined, considering the evidence of other witnesses and proceeding further in recording the conviction was not proper and the same is erroneous. Hence, interference by this Court is necessary in order to secure the ends of justice. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to allow the revision petition. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State vehemently justified the concurrent findings and submitted that the findings of the Courts below are appropriate and he submitted that it is an admitted fact that the accused No.1 obtained the property with the aid of accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State vehemently justified the concurrent findings and submitted that the findings of the Courts below are appropriate and he submitted that it is an admitted fact that the accused No.1 obtained the property with the aid of accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. The accused No.2 misrepresented and impersonated the said Francis Cutino even though he died prior to the execution of the sale deed. Accused Nos.3 and 4 knowingly with an intention to grab the property, attested Ex.P2 - sale deed by saying that accused No.2 is the person who is the owner of the property mentioned in the sale deed. 12. It is further submitted that the disputed signatures and specimen signatures were sent for chemical analysis and also for the opinion of the handwriting expert. It has been proved that the accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed forgery and also breach of trust. Therefore, the conviction held by both the Courts is proper and appropriate. Interference with the said findings may not be necessary. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent prays to dismiss the revision petition. 13. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents available on record, it appears from the findings of the Courts below that P.W.1 – Jerold Rebello is the complainant. P.W.2 – Ranjana Rebello is the sister of P.W.1. Both have spoken about the non-availability of Francis Cutino. P.W.3 – Joseph D’souza is the person who had purchased the property from Francis Cutino in the year 1979 as per Ex.P5. P.W.4 – Nirmala is the stamp vendor. P.W.5 – Surendra Shenoy is the husband of P.W.4. He was a Document Writer by profession. P.W.6 – Mukunda Gowda was working in the office of the Sub-Registrar as ‘D’ Group employee who identified Ex.P2. P.W.7 – Harischandra Hejmady is the Finger Print Expert who gave his opinion as per Exs.P10 and 11. According to him, the fingerprint impression found on Ex.P2 and the specimen thumb impression of accused No.2 is both one and the same. Similarly, all the witnesses have spoken about their respective roles in the investigation. 14. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.2 impersonated Francis Cutino and executed the sale deed to accused No.1 by impersonating the said Francis Cutino. Similarly, all the witnesses have spoken about their respective roles in the investigation. 14. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.2 impersonated Francis Cutino and executed the sale deed to accused No.1 by impersonating the said Francis Cutino. Accused Nos.3 and 4 have affixed their signatures as witnesses to the said sale deed. Ex.P2 is the sale deed which is alleged to have been executed by accused No.2 in favour of accused No.1. Ex.P5 is the original sale deed of which the said Francis Cutino stated to have executed in favour of a third party. 15. These two sale deeds have been subjected to Handwriting Expert opinion by taking the specimen signatures and thumb impression of accused No.2. P.Ws.7 and 17 are the Handwriting Experts who examined those documents and submitted their respective reports and opined that accused No.2 had forged the signatures and thumb impression of Francis Cutino. 16. Be that as it may, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the sale deed which is marked as Ex.P2 has been executed by the said Francis Cutino and the said aspect has not been considered by the Courts below is concerned, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 would indicate that Francis Cutino was not traced since 25 years. The sale deed of the year 1998. Prior to that, there was one more sale deed stated to have been executed by said Francis Cutino in favour of third party. It is an admitted fact that the civil dispute existed between accused No.1 with the complainant and others which is numbered as O.S.No.12/1999 filed before Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & CJM, Udupi. As per the findings of the Trial Court, it is emerged that the Civil Court declared the sale deed which is marked as Ex.P2 as null and void on the ground that accused No.1 has failed to prove the sale deed by examining the necessary witnesses and moreover, the said Francis Cutino had no right to execute such sale deed even if he was alive. 17. It is needless to say that, the opinion of the Experts alone cannot be sufficient to hold that the accused had committed an offence. It is imperative that always corroboration is necessary even though the evidence of Expert witnesses are believable. 17. It is needless to say that, the opinion of the Experts alone cannot be sufficient to hold that the accused had committed an offence. It is imperative that always corroboration is necessary even though the evidence of Expert witnesses are believable. In the present case, though the Experts – P.Ws.7 and 17 have consistently opined that accused No.2 had forged the signature and thumb impression of Francis Cutino, the fact remains that the said sale deed is not valid as it was nullified by the Civil Court. 18. On going through the findings of the Courts below in arriving at a conclusion that Ex.P2 is a forged one and Ex.P5 is a genuine sale deed, the fact remains that the civil dispute in respect of the disputed sale deeds is pending consideration. Such being the fact, arriving at a conclusion that the accused have committed the offences as stated supra based on the evidence of Experts, which appears to be erroneous and not proper. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of both the Courts are required to be set aside. 19. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 28.02.2012 and 14.03.2012 in C.C No.5277/1999 and C.C.No.3658/2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, and its confirmation judgment and order dated 16.09.2017 in Crl.A.Nos.26, 27 and 34 of 2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi District, Udupi, are set aside. (iii) The petitioners are acquitted for the offences under Sections 120B, 419, 467, 471 r/w 34 of IPC. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.