IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. A-869-MA of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 28.01.2011 Chattar Singh .... APPLICANT Versus Deen Mohammed and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the applicant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Chattar Singh, who is grand-son of complainant Tara Chand (since died during the pendency of the complaint before the trial court) has filed this appeal along with the instant application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18.3.2010, passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur Jhirka, whereby respondents No.1 to 5 have been acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 420, 468, 120B, 467, 471 IPC. In this case, respondents No.1 to 5 were tried by the trial court on a complaint filed by Tara Chand, on the allegations that for the last more than 30 years, he was in continuous possession of certain land as second mortgagee. Initially, this land along with its possession was mortgaged by Smt. Chanderbi, in favour of her three sons, namely respondents No.1 and 2 Cr. Misc. No. 869-MA of 2010 -2- and Aziz Ahmed (now dead). (It is pertinent to mention here that Aziz Ahmed was also named as an accused in the complaint, but during the pendency of the complaint, proceedings against him were dropped by the trial court). In the year 1961, all the three brothers further mortgaged this land with Tara Chand (complainant). It was further alleged that respondent No.1 is relative of respondent No.5 and all the accused, including respondents No.1 to 5, aforesaid Aziz Ahmed as well as accused No.7 and 8, who were Halqa Patwari and Naib Tehsildar, hatched a conspiracy with an intention to cheat complainant Tara Chand. Respondent No.5 and accused No.7 and 8 forged his signatures on the Roznamcha Vakyati for the year 1996-97 and made a mutation dated 15.4.1997, whereby the land was redeemed in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 and their brother Aziz Ahmed. On the basis of the preliminary evidence, led by the complainant, respondents No.1 to 5 along with Aziz Ahmed, were summoned under Sections 466, 468, 471, 120B IPC. Subsequently, on closure of the pre-charge evidence, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, respondents No.1 to 5 were charge sheeted under Sections 420, 468, 120B, 467, 471 IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In the after-charge evidence, the complainant got examined Naresh Kataria, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert (PW.1), applicant Chattar Singh (PW.2) and Udhey Singh Patwari (PW.3). In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., respondents No.1 Cr. Misc. No. 869-MA of 2010 -3- to 5 denied all the allegations appearing against them in the evidence and pleaded innocence. In defence, respondent No.5 examined Ram Singh Lambardar (DW.1). The trial court, after considering the evidence and the documents available on the record, has come to the conclusion that the applicant (PW.2), who appeared as a witness on behalf of the complainant (since died), is a hear-say witness. Regarding PW.3 Udey Singh Patwari, it has been held that he has failed to bring the original records, which are allegedly lost and the report submitted by PW.1 Naresh Kataria, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, has been found to be not reliable, as this witness himself admitted that he is not Urdu literate. Thus, the trial court has observed that all the witnesses of the complainant are unreliable and the complainant has failed to prove the allegations in the complaint beyond any reasonable doubt, as none of the complainant's witnesses gave any strength to the allegations made in the complaint. Accordingly, respondents No.1 to 5 have been acquitted of the charges. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the impugned judgment. In the complaint, the allegation is that the accused under a conspiracy had forged the signatures of the complainant on the Roznamcha Vakyati for the year 1996-97, Rapat No. 264, on the basis of which mutation No. 4017 dated 15.4.1997 was entered. In order to prove the charges, the complainant produced three witnesses, namely PW.1 Naresh Kataria, Cr. Misc. No. 869-MA of 2010 -4- Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, PW.2 Chattar Singh – grand-son of the complainant, and PW.3 Udhey Singh Patwari. PW.3 Udhey Singh Patwari did not produce the original Rapat Roznamcha, on the basis of which the mutation was entered. In order to prove the signatures on the Roznamcha Vakyati, which are alleged to have been forged by the accused, PW.1 Naresh Kataria, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, was examined. The learned trial court has held that the evidence of handwriting expert is not reliable for two reasons : (i) that the specimen signatures of the accused were not taken by the expert, whereas specimen signatures of the complainant were taken from the complaint and the Vakalatnama, which were not his admitted signatures; and (ii) that the signatures and the document were in Urdu, but the handwriting expert was not literate in Urdu, therefore, he could not have properly analysed the signatures. The learned trial court has further observed that the statement of PW.2 Chattar Singh is only hear-say, as he was not present at the time of the alleged forgery. In the absence of the original Rapat Roznamcha, no opinion regarding forgery could have been framed by the trial court and merely on the basis of statement of the handwriting and finger prints expert, whose statement was found to be un-reliable, respondents No.1 to 5 could not have been convicted for the alleged offence. In our opinion, the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence led by the complainant and thereafter, come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations in the complaint beyond any reasonable doubt. Thus, in our opinion, the view Cr. Misc. No. 869-MA of 2010 -5- taken by the trial court is one of the possible view, which can be taken from the evidence led by the complainant in the instant case. It cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court, while acquitting respondents No.1 to 5, is totally perverse, which cannot be taken, at all, in the given circumstances. It is settled law that the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53 that the High Court should interfere in the judgment of acquittal only when it finds that the evidence on record clearly and absolutely indicate the guilt of the accused. The High Court should not interfere merely on the basis that from the evidence on record a different view as to the trial Court is possible. Thus, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE January 28, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE