THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.1702 of 2004 Date: 15.07.2011 Between: Bethole Sanjeevulu … Petitioner/A.2 AND State of A.P. through Police P.S. Sangareddy Town rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent/ Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.1702 of 2004 ORDER: The present petitioner, who is A.2 and two others, who are A.1 and A.3 in C.C.No.185 of 1999, faced trial before the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sanga Reddy. The learned Magistrate considered that the case was made out beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 419 of the India Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner/A.2 preferred an appeal therefrom unsuccessfully. Hence, the present revision. 2. The case of the prosecution is: a) A C.I.S.F. Constable by name Binoth Kumar Singh was involved in the offences connected with Sessions Case No.134 of 1997 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy. He was enlarged on bail on the basis of a spurious salary certificate. b) The trial Court framed charges u/s.420, 468, 465 and 499 IPC. As many as 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 15 exhibits and 3 material objects were marked. Considering that the case was made out for all the charges, the learned trial Judge recorded conviction and sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years in respect of each of the four offences. The learned trial Judge, however, directed that the sentences should run concurrently. c) The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy. Assailing the judgments of conviction, A.2 preferred the present revision. A.1 and A.3 are no more. 3. The allegation of the prosecution is that Binoth Kumar Singh, CISF Constable was arrested and that he was later released on the strength of spurious salary certificate. Alleging that all the accused were instrumental in the preparation of that spurious salary certificate, the present case was laid by the prosecution. 4. Sri N. Vinesh Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2, inter alia contended that PWs.5 and 6 are responsible for the offences and that instead of filing a case against PWs.5 and 6, the prosecution laid the case against the three accused. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that PWs.5 and 6 did not either make a confession nor is there any evidence to show that PWs.5 and 6 were involved in the commission of offences. PW.5 was the Upa-sarpanch. He never admitted that or deposed that he was instrumental in the preparation of the forged salary certificate. It is the case of the prosecution that Ex.P.7 is the said salary certificate, which was a spurious document. 6. A.1 and A.2 stood as sureties to Binoth Kumar Singh. However, there is no evidence as to the complicity of A.2 in the preparation of the spurious document. Admittedly, the prosecution failed to establish the case against A.2 independently except on the strength of the confession of A.3 that A.2 was involved with them in bringing out the false and spurious salary certificates. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2 rightly submitted that the confession of a co-accused is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt against whom such a confession is made. Consequently, apart from the confession of A.3, there must be other evidence against A.2 to bring home the conviction against A.2 for various offences with which he is charged. 7. While so, the prosecution did not even choose to examine the sureties who allegedly stood as sureties to Binoth Kumar Singh. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever against the present petitioner/A.2 barring for the confessional statement of A.3. 8. In the absence of other evidence which supplies necessary material corroboration for the alleged confession of A.2, I cannot accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to hold that the prosecution brought home the guilt of A.2 in any manner much less beyond reasonable doubt. Where the prosecution failed to show that A.2 played a role in the preparation of a spurious salary certificate under Ex.A.7, conviction against A.2 is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the calling of A.2 as an auto driver has no relevance in determining the guilt of the accused. The overall evidence of as many as 7 witnesses did not pinpoint any overt act on the part of A.2 in the commission of the offence. As observed, the very basis of the case against A.2 is the alleged confession of A.3. First, the alleged confession of A.3 is inadmissible. Secondly, such a confession of one accused cannot work out as evidence against the other accused. Viewed in any angle, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A.2 beyond reasonable doubt. 9. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2 that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of A.2 beyond reasonable doubt. A.2 accordingly is found not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and is acquitted of the same. His bail bonds stand discharged. The judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court are set aside. 10. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed accordingly. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 15.07.2011 Isn