1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 252 of 2001 Decided on: February 26, 2011. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Udey Ram & ors ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?. No. For the Appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr Mehar Chand, Advocate for respondents 4 to 7. Surinder Singh, Judge (Oral) Accused respondents were charge sheeted, tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 472, 468, 467, 420 read with section 34 of IPC in criminal case 141/2 of 95 decided on 11.12.2000, which has been challenged in the present appeal by the State . 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 2 3. Factual matrix of the case giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. Respondents 1 to 4 are the residents of village ‘Kanti Mashva’ in Tehsil Poanta Sahib. They are agriculturists and rear up sheeps’ and goats. In the year 1993, PW-1 Balbir Singh was the Pradhan of the Panchayat. It is alleged that respondents 1 to 4 falsely represented to the forest authorities that their sheeps and goats were killed by a wild animal, thus applied for the damages from the forest department and obtained an amount of `5,500/- as damages by furnishing false certificates and affixing a duplicate stamp of Pradhan on their respective applications and fudged the signatures of Balbir Singh, Pradhan. Balbir Singh filed a complaint Ex PW-1/A before the Sub Divisional Magistrate which complaint culminated into the FIR in the concerned Police Station. 4. Duplicate rubber stamp of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat was allegedly produced by respondent Nand Ram before the police during investigation and was taken into possession vide Ex PW-1/B. Police also found the connivance of the respondent forest officials, namely, Banarsi Dass, Block Officer and two forest guards, Dharam Singh and Gian Chand, as such, they were arraigned as 3 accused. The specimen writings and signatures of the respondents were taken before the Executive Magistrate and the admitting writings of forest officials were also obtained and sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned documents, PW-9 Sh. M.L. Sharma. On examination he submitted his report along with reasons. 5. The monthly progress report from the office of Divisional Forest Officer was also taken into possession by the police. He had sanctioned the aforesaid amount in favour of respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the cattle allegedly killed by the wild animal. Besides respondents aforesaid, police also took specimen writings of one Attar Singh. Respondent Nand Ram is also alleged to have signed voucher for `1500/- and Udey Ram for ` 2000/-. After completing the investigation of the case, police presented in the court for trial of the respondents under aforesaid offences. 6. At the end of the trial, they were acquitted on the ground that there was no direct evidence against the respondents and opinion of the document expert cannot be accepted without corroboration. 7. We have meticulously examined the record of the learned trial court. PW-1 Balbir Singh, the 4 then Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, substantiated his case as far as loding of report Ex PW-1/A with the Sub Divisional Magistrate is concerned. He also stated about taking into possession his official rubber stamp Ex P-1 vide memo Ex PW-1/B. He stated that no damage was caused by the wild animals to the goats and sheeps of respondents 1 to 3 and the certificate in the name of Pradhan was forged by them. He expressed his ignorance about the fact that the Veterinary compunder and the forest officials had seen the actual damage done to the cattle of the respondents aforesaid and submitted their reports to the concerned department. He was the person who had appended the said certificates under his signatures by using different rubber stamp. He denied that the instant case was lodged against respondents 1 to 4 on account of rivalry in the Panchayat elections. However, PW-5 Jalam Singh admitted that respondents 1 to 3 are the relatives of Sunder Singh were his rival candidate in the Panchayat elections. 8. It is pertinent to note that PW-3 Shupa Ram, PW-4 Partap Singh, PW-5 Jalam Singh did not support the case of prosecution, whereas PW-6 is a witness of taking into possession of rubber stamp Ex P-1 of 5 Pradhan from PW-1 Balbir Singh. There is also a document Ex PW-1/A vide which alleged duplicate stamp was taken into possession from respondent Nanda Ram in the presence of PW-4 Partap Singh and one Bhondu Ram son of Hari Singh. PW-4 Partap Singh did not support the case of the prosecution, as such, he was declared hostile. Further a perusal of the memo Ex PW-4/A vide which alleged duplicate stamp was taken into possession, shows that there is a gap in the body of the memo with respect to taking into possession the said stamp and the signatures of said Nand Ram and attesting witnesses. Further the attestation has also been made by the Head Constable over and above their signatures, which appears to have prepared on a blank signed paper of the accused and the witnesses thereof. 9. Further we do not find any evidence worth the name whether Ex P1 was the original official stamp of the Pradhan, therefore, in our opinion, prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged duplicate rubber stamp fabricated and used by the respondents on their respective applications and also that the alleged duplicate stamp was recovered from the possession of Nand Ram. 6 10. We also find that the specimen hand writing and signatures of PW-1 Balbir Singh, the then Pradhan, who was the complainant, were not taken by the police for its comparison by the hand writing expert, to find out the disputed applications contain his signatures. Whereas, case of the respondents, as stated above, is that the aforesaid certificates were issued by the complainant himself. 11. In view of the above, the report of the writing expert also looses its importance which also requires corroboration in the above factual backdrop and at the worst it raises suspicion against the respondents, but suspicion is not a substitute for proof. The prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Thus, in view of the above discussion, we do not find that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the respondents beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial court are borne out from the evidence on record, which requires no interference. As such, the appeal filed by the State sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 7 13. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. Send down the records. (R.B.Misra), J. February 26, 2011 (Surinder Singh),J. (sl)